originating it OERI position or policy Think Peoplefiles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED316985.pdfProgram (ARTAP) was conceptualized by. a committee of 48 persons. representing persons with

,1111MMIMI

Think People...Think Technology.

,,, \\., ZY> \WOWS.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Nesearch and ImprovementEDUCATIONAL RESOURCIS INFORMATION

CENTf'P (EPIC)"KThis document haS 1,Jen reproduced aS

received from the Demon or organizationoriginating it

Cl Minor changes have bcon made to improvereproduction quality

Points of view or opinionS staled in MIS dmument do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

Ire ru

ARKANSASTECHNOLOGY

ACCESSPROGRAM

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Grant submitted by the Arkansas Department ofHuman Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services tothe United States Department of Education, NationalInstitute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research(84.224, State Grants Program), Washington, D.C.20202

July 24, 1989

Prepared by a writing team coordinated by:Alan VanBiervliet, Ph.D., Howard P. Parette, Jr., Ed.D.,

Sue Gaskin, and Burton D. Pusch

2 BEST COPYCOPY AVAILABLE

Think People...Think Technology.

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOfli Le of Educational Reserve h and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RC SOURCI S INFORMATIONCENT( 141E171C)

..errThis doc omen? has I, len reproduc ed tiSffiCeIVBCI from the Demon or organizationoriginating it

CI Minor < twinges have bc.en made to improvereproduction quality

Points nt view or opinions staled in this umen! do not necessattly represent officialOE RI position or policy

ARKANSASTECHNOLOGY

ACCESSPROGRAM

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

Grant submitted by the Arkansas Department ofHuman Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services tothe United States Department of Education, NationalInstitute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research(84.224, State Grants Program), Washington, D.C.20202

July 24, 1989

Prepared by a writing team coordinated by:Alan VanBiervliet, Ph.D., Howard P. Parette, Jr., Ed.D.,

Sue Gaskin, and Burton D. Pusch

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ARKANSAS TECHNOLOGY ACCESS PROGRAM

Abstract

Technology plays an important role in all of our lives. No one canpotentially benefit more from technology than persons with disabilities.Representing a cooperative effort to find solutions to problems Arkansans withdisabilities have in obtaining technology, the Arkansas Technology AccessProgram (ARTAP) was conceptualized by a committee of 48 personsrepresenting persons with disabilities, their families, and 25 public and privateagencies and organizations. The purpose of ARTAP is to create and support aconsumer-responsive, statewide system for enabling Arkansans with disabilities toaccess needed technologies. This system is designed to serve individuals withdisabilities regardless of their ages or disabilities. The goals for this program areto: 1) develop an on-going consumer-driven technology planning and evaluationsystem; 2) develop a statewide technology information/service system; 3)establish a marketing and public awareness campaign to promote the benefits anduse of technology for persons with disabilities; 4) facilitate the development andexpansion of technology access centers; 5) develop coordinated trainingactivities for consumers, their families, professionals, employers and the generalpublic concerning technology-related services; 6) create a statewide system forequipment exchange of used assistive devices; 7) improve interagencycooperation in the development of consumer-responsive policies and proceduresregarding technology services; 8) establish a network of community-basedtechnology specialists for consumers and their families; and 9) develop,implement, and evaluate a User-to-User network involving consumers providinginformation and support to one another. The success of the ARTAP processreflects very strong commitments by consumers and professionals in Arkansas tobreak down the barriers to technology access, and to enhance the lives andopportunities of persons of all ages with disabilities through the appropriate useof technology. Funding is sought under P.L. 100-407, the Technology-RelatedAssistance for Disabilities Act of 1988, to help facilitate these efforts. Theprocesses used to develop the unique cooperative relationships in Arkansas whichunderpin the ARTAP proposal can serve as models for other states striving tosolve technology access problems.

Note: Appendices have not been included in this version of the grant proposaland all references to appendices have been removed from the narrative. Copiesare available on request from: Department of Human Services, Divisioa ofRehabilitation Services, P.O. Box 1437, Little Rock, AR 72203.

3

Arkansas Technology Access 1

Arkansas Technology Access Philosophy:

The definition of technology cannot be limited to a "thing" that can be processed through the

five senses of sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. Technology also represents a personal and corporate

paradigm which continually defines, and is being defined by, technology itself. Technology represents

new ways of perceiving and doing things.

Technology continues to change the way we work, play and live. The average individual cannot

go to work, the grocery store or the doctor without experiencing the effects of new technology. The

environment in which we live is heavily influenced by the development and use of technology. However,

while the lives of the general public are more and more influenced by this application of science to daily

living, technology is only nominally used to enhance the lives of persons with disabilities.

Somewhere along the line society somehow forgot the important and positive impacts of

technology on the functional independence of persons with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities,

who can probably make the most use out of technological devices and services, often have the least access

to them. Traditionally, persons who require a higher level of assistance havenot been provided with

technology, but have been placed in environments that cause them to be dependent on others to meet their

needs. The introduction of technology in the lives of persons with disabilities can make the difference

between these traditional settings of helpless dependency and lives of functional independence filled

with opportunities based on people's abilities- - not their disabilities. Technology means empowerment

by increasing the quality of life and the expression of individual abilities.

Why the interfacing of technology with persons with disabilities is not occurring on a larger

scale is a complex question. Factors like the medical paradigm, the eternal child syndrome, and the "in-

valid" myth are part of the puzzle. Cultural and societal values and standards which are unique to poor,

rural settings in a state like Arkansas tifluence this situation. Value issues related to traditional beliefs

and translated into financial priorities weigh heavily in understanding the problem. Access and


information issues may impede understanding and use of technology. All of these things, and more, are

factors which handicap our society in fully accessing and utilizing technology-related services devices

to enhance the quality of lives of persons with disabilities.

The State of Arkansas has a proven track record when it comes to increasing the awareness and

application of technological services and devices for people with disabilities. However, so far these

programs have been limited to too few individuals, agencies and organizations.

This proposal is the result of the collective efforts of a wide range of persons and organizations

who share the goal of integrating assistive technological services and devices into the mainstream life

of persons with disabilities. The purpose of this proposal to create a state-wide system for getting

information and technology to the people who can use it, to influence the decision processes of the people

can make it available, financially or otherwise, and to enhance and strengthen the relationship between

the user, the provider, the funder, and the assistive device developer.

T


Process Used to Develop the ArkansasTechnology Access Program (ARTAP)

Designation by the Governor.

The Honorable Bill Clinton, Governor of the State of Arkansas, has designated the Department

of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services as the agency responsible for preparing the grant

application in accordance with Public Law 100-407, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals

with &Abilities Act of 1988. Subsequent to this designation, the responsibilities of Division of

Rehabilitation Services include: (e) ensuring active, timely, and meaningful participation by individuals

with disabilities and their families or representatives, and other appropriate individuals with respect to

performing functions and carrying out activities under the grant; (b) assisting in the development of the

statewide program of technology-related assistance; (c) ensuring coordination between public and

private agencies, including the entering into interagency agreements; (d) administering and supervising

the funds made available under the grant; and (e) delegating any of these responsibilities to one or more

appropriate agencies, entities, or individuals. The strategies that were used to develop plans for achieving

these tasks are presented below and they are illustrated in Figure 1.

Technology Access for Arkansans (TAARK) Project

During the past five years, a number of exemplary services and programs have been initiated

in Arkansas to enhance the quality of lives of persons with disabilities through the use of technology.

These activities, however, have been unable to solve the technology access problems facing Arkansans

with disabilities due to a lack of interagency cooperation, a lack of coordinated planning, the limited

scope of projects, and categorical-based eligibility requirements. In an attempt to meet the technology

related needs of more Arkansans with disabilities, a cooperative effort was initiated via the funding of

a 1-year grant for the Technology Access for Arkansans (TAARK) Project through the Arkansas

Governor's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council and the University of Arkansas-University

Affiliated Programs in Developmental Disabilities. TAARK was planned by six public and private


agencies; these are the University of Arkansas- University Affiliated Programs, Arkansas Division of

Rehabilitation Services, Association for Retarded Citizens //s ..kansas, Arkansas Special Education

Resource Center, Arkansas Children's Hospital-UAMS, and Arkansas Easter Seal Society. TAARK

was designed to: (a) identify the need and quality of technology provisions in Arkansas, (b) disseminate

information about appropriate technology and funding, (c) educate Arkansans about technology and

advocacy, (d) develop a coordinated state plan for technology , and (e) provide technical assistance to

the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.

This grant provided the fiscal basis for the intensive planning activities that evolved into the

Arkansas Technology Access Plan. In early November 1989, a Technology Steering Committee

representing the six state, private, and consumer agencies and groups that developed the TAARK grant

ARTAP's Consumer Driven Planning Process

TECHNOLOGY STEERING COMMITTEEUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock-UAPOHS, Division of Rehabilitation Services

Arkansas Easter Seal SocietyAssociation for Retarded Citizens /Arkansas

Special Education Resource CenterArkansas Children's Hospital-UAMS

,,,,, 1. ,

COORDINATED PLANNING COMMITTEE48 Persons representing consumers, parents and

25 agencies/organizations

STUDY GROUPSIM

ConsumerNeeds

NationalServiceDeliveryModels

InformationDissemination

and PublicAwareness

Legislationand

AdministrativePolicies

Public andPrivateFunding

PersonnelIssues

............. ....

CONSUMER COMMITTEEEstablished Direction and Priorities

for theArkansas Technology Access Plan

Figure 1. Illustration of the process used to develop the Arkansas Technology Access Plan.

7


proposal, was organized and provided with information relevant to Public Law 100-407, the objectives

of Project TAARK, and timelines for proposed activities. This group decided to convene a larger

planning group that would consist of individuals with disabilities, their families or representatives,

representatives of state and private agencies, vendors, and other individuals as deemed appropriate.

Coordinated Planning Committee

A Coordinated Planning Committee was established on January 4, 1989, at a meeting which

was jointly convened by TAARK and the Arkansas Division of Rehabilitation Services . The purpose

of the Coordinated Planning Committee was to develop a state plan fora consumer responsive statewide

system of technology-related assistance, and to develop an application for P.L. 100-407. An illustration

of the process used to develop Arkansas' plan for technology access is presented in Figure 1.

Since only 3 of the 15 participants in the first meeting were individuals with disabilities, parents

of children with disabilities or their representatives, the participants were requested to nominate at least

two individuals with disabilities or parents to serve on the committee. At the next meeting, 10 (46%)

of the 22 participants were individuals with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, or their

representatives. During this meeting, 6 study groups were organized to facilitate the acquisition of

information relevant to TAARK project goals. These study groups included Consumer Needs,

Information Dissemination and Public Awareness, Legislation and Administrative Policies, National

Service Delivery Models, Personnel Issues, and Funding Issues, and were chaired by the representatives

of the 6 organizations constituting Project TAARK. Each of these groups met independently from

January until March to collect information relevant to the issue area targeted by the study group, identify

barriers to technology access in Arkansas, and to develop solutions to the barriers. The TAARK Project

Director was present at each of these study group meetings to facilitate the process and disseminate

information regarding the activities and findings of other study grow'

The Coordinated Planning Committee met 7 times between January and July 1989 as indicated

in the minutes of the respective meetings. All meetings were well attended with an average of 24 persons

participating in each meeting. Forty-eight persons, who represented 25 public and private agencies,

participated in the meetings. Nineteen (40%) of the participants were persons with disabilities, parents


of children with disabilities, or their representatives. Twelve (25%) of the participants were represen-

tatives of private non-profit organizations. Three (6%) individuals represented private businesses, such

as assistive device vendors. Fourteen (29%) of the participants were employees of 12 state agencies. A

few of the participants are counted twice ili these figures, e.g., 4 state agency employees were also persons

with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities.

A large part of the early meetings of the Coordinated Planning Committee was devoted to

technology awareness and information sharing activities. National experts were hired to provide

information on alternative approaches towards developing a statewide system of technology access , and

to facilitate the planning process. On March 13, a Planning Conference was held for all study groups

to ensure coordinated planning activities and to share infoi ination regarding forthcoming tasks. On

March 22-23, a 2-day retreat was held at DeGray State Park Lodge to begin development of the grant

application for P.L. 100-407. At this conference, verbal reports were given by each study group

regarding their findings in their designated issue areas. Written reports were subsequently submitted and

compiled as a written document, Proceedings from the DeGray Lodge Retreat, that was made available

to all Coordinated Planning Committee members as well as the public on request. Four additional

meetings of the Coordinated Planning Committee were held prior to the drafting of this grant proposal.

Throughout I:le TAARK planning activities, the involvement of individuals with disabilities,

their families or representatives, and persons from the private sector have been actively encouraged and

facilitated. Inherent in the initial grant award was a budgetary allotment for stipends to support

involvement of individuals with disabilities and their families at all planning meetings. Prior to the

March 22-23 meeting of the Coordinated Planning Committee, held at DeGray Lodge, advance

announcements were sent to all members indicating that stipend support would be provided in the form

of babysitting and/or attendant reimbursement, as well as reimbursement for meals, lodging, and

transportation. Individuals having access to a reimbursement mechanism via state or private agency

were encouraged to utilize those resources. It was anticipated that such support would more readily

facilitate the participation of consumers and parents who might have home responsibilities that typically

inhibit such participation. It was found that this support did encourage participation, as 9 consumers,

parents, and representatives (27%) constituted the makeup of the retreat meeting.


Consumer Committee

At the May 10 meeting of the Coordinated Planning Committee, a decision was made to

establish a group of individuals with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities selected from

the Coordinated Planning Committee to establish priorities for the Arkansas grant application for P.L.

100-407. The resulting Consumer Committee reflected a constituency ofpersons representing a variety

of interest groups: a chairperson with a visual impairment who also heads a independent living center

that is funded under TitleVII Part B; a parent of a child with cerebral palsy who is on the Governor's

Committee for Employment of the Handicapped; a parent of a multihandicapped child who also is active

on a state level as a parent advocate; a parent of a deaf/blind child who is also the Chair of the Governor's

Deaf/Blind Task Force; a person with learning disabilities who also serves on the National Learning

Disabilities Advisory Board; a person with blindness employed as an executive with AT&T who is on

a 2-year loan to the President's Committee for Employment for the Handicapped and serves on the

Governor's Committee for Employment of the Handicapped; and an elderly person representing the

aging population as a member of the Governor's Advisory Council on Aging. Initial data analyses of

an extensive consumer survey were shared with the committee to assist it in its efforts to establish

priorities.

The Consumer Committee met on numerous occasions in an effort to both prioritize technology

goals for the proposed grant application, as well as to offer recommendations pertaining to methodolo-

gies for attaining those goals. The recommendations of this committeewere presented to the Coordinated

Planning Committee at its meeting on May 24. Subsequent meetings focused on methodological

decision-making processes to deal with the priorities established by the Consumer Committee. A

representative of the Consumer Committee was present at meetings of the Technology Steering

Committee held on June 8 and June 14 to ensure that the integrity of their priorities and recommendations

was maintained in the development of state plan methodologies.

It should be noted that at all meetings of the Coordinated Planning Committee, subsequent to

the organizational meeting on January 4, 1989, an average of 38% of participants were persons with

disabilities or parents of persons with disabilities. This statistic supports the strong commitment in this


planning process to facilitate maximum participation by persons with disabilities and their families in

the design of a comprehensive technology state plan.

Consumer Needs Survey

Consumer input was encouraged from across the state via the mechanism of a Consumer

Survey designed to assess needs of users, or potential users of technology. The format for the survey

instrument included multiple choice questions on specific technology-relevant issues, and open-ended

items allowing consumers to express their unique needs and to offer suggestions for those involved in

the state planning processes. These suggestions were systematically recorded and compiled for the

review of those establishing priorities for the state plan as well as those designing methodologies for the

implementation of those priorities. In addition to the Consumer Survey, efforts were made during the

information gathering phase of Project TAARK to secure the input of professionals from across the state

regarding their views regarding technology-related needs. Preliminary summaries of the results of these

surveys are presented in the Needs Assessment section.

Interagency Coordination in Planning

From the outset of the state technology planning activities, interagency participationon a broad

level has been encouraged and facilitated. Examining the constituency of the various minutes of

meetings as well as the official mailing list for the Coordinated Planning Committee (see Appendix J),

it can be seen that involvement has grown from the six initial members constituting Project TAARK

to 48 persons representing 25 public and private groups/agencies, as well as persons with disabilities and

their families. The Coordinated Planning Committee exhibits a mixed makeup demonstrating the efforts

of TAARK participants to emphasize consumer involvement coupled with interagency cooperation.

Approximately 40% of the Coordinated Planning Committee consists of persons with disabilities, their

families and their representatives; 25% of the Commttee consisted of representatives from public non-

profit organizations; and 29% of the Coordinated Planning Committee was represented by profession-

als from 15 state agencies. Three persons were from the business community , including assistive device

vendors. One individual on the Coordinated Planning Committee represented the private advertising


sector.

Additional Interagency Links

Several unique approaches have been undertaken in attempting to involve a cadre of individu-

als in TAARK activities during the state planning phase of the project. It was discovered in February

1989 that the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department was preparing to undertake an

extensive survey to determine the transportation needs of citizens with special needs across the state as

a component of its 5-year planning activities. TAARK personnel cultivated a collaborative working

relationship with the Planning Division of this state agency. This relationship enabled information of

value to both TAARK and the Highway Department to be obtained and shared. Due to this cooperative

working relationship, the Highway Department subsidized a significant portion of the costs for a

statewide survey of persons with disabilities which was conducted prior to this grant submission.

Another novel working relationship that has been cultivated is with the Arkansas Community

Council/Arkansas Advertising Council. This organization is comprised of businessmen from the private

sector who have marketing and advertising experience. Given the fact that the president of this

organization is a member of the Coordinated Planning Committee, a cooperative relationship is being

developed wherein the expertise of this body of professionals will be used in future state technology

awareness and marketing endeavors.

Needs Assessment

Prevalence of Persons With Disabilities In Arkansas

Prior to the beginning Project TAARK and this planning process, numerous efforts had already

been undertaken in Arkansas to identify persons with disabilities. In addition to the annual Child Find

efforts of the Arkansas State Department of Education, it was found that a variety of public agencies had

initiated studies to examine specific target p )pulations for service delivery in the state. One of the

common findings from all investigations is that Arkansas consistently ranks within the top 10 states on

numbers of persons with disabilities and on the presence of known social and environmental conditions

that cause disabilities (e.g., puor prenatal services and high numbers of teen pregnancies).


Even though much is known about individuals with disabilities in Arkansas, it must be noted

that the information is still not currently complete and some logical conclusions are reached based on

correlations rather than proven causations. The Office of Technology Assessment (1982) has found that

the lack of valid, reliable data concerning the numbers of persons with specific forms of functional

limitations and the demographic characteristics of those persons is currently a critical problem. This lack

of information results in limitations concerning the improvement of policymaking and the use of

technology. Given these limitations, however, the ARTAP philosophy is to use existing data sources

regarding the technological needs of persons with disabilities as wisely as possible, and to gather

additional data as needed for planning and ev41nation. In additior, the planners of ARTAP believe that

no one is aware of all present and future technologies which can potentially enhance the quality of life

for persons with disabilities, therefore circumstances that might not be seen as a need today may be a

critical need tomorrow.

In 1986, the Arkansas Governor's Developmental Disab;lities Planning Council funded an

epidemiological study of the incidence and prevalence of developmental disabilities undei the present

Arkansas definition and the alternative federal definition (Agosta, Ashbaugh, Langer, Moore, Bradley,

Mulkern, & Nurczynski, 1988). Conducted by the Human Services Research Institute of Cambridge,

Massachusetts, the study results indicated that significant numbers of Arkansans have disabilities. A

total of 331,259 persons of all ages have some type of disability, with a majority of individuals (63%)

constituting the age 45 and above category. Taken as a whole, 13% of the state's population base of

2,286,435 persons (13%) are disabled in some manner so as to affect some component of their life

functioning. Figure 2 illustrates the estimated numbers of persons with disabilities across age groups for

each region of the state. These estimates were compiled based upon the comprehensive study reported

above.

Prenatal Conditions, and Infants and Preschoolers With Disabilities

Other studies have documented that Arkansas ranks alarmingly high on all indicators related

to high rates of developmental disabilities (Hughes, Johnson, Rosenbaum, Simons, & Butler, 1987).

Specific statistics relevant to children with disabilities reported by Hughes et al. include: (a) Arkansas

ranks second in the United States with regard to the number of teen pregnancies; 1 in every 5 infants born


in the state has an adolescent mother ; (b) Babies born in Arkansas have a greater chance of being

dangerously small (under 5.5 pounds) than in almost any other state in the country; (c) Arkansas ranks

8th among the states in the percentage of babies born to mothers who receive late or no prenatal care;

almost 7% of Arkansas mothers receive little or no prenatal care; (d) Arkansas has a high infant mortality

rate, as 1 in every 100 babies dies before they are a year old.

Geographical Distribution ofPersons With Disabilities In Arkansas

V. V

1124v52:19 I Northwest

19510c n=45,302*9529d

!White River I

n=28,991

3809871951)

12485c

5925d

Western est Central

n=29,612*

38918

7349b12753c

6052d

n=36,167*

4752a

89764)

15575c

7392d

04598

1975034283c Central

16270d n=79,606*

East

n=56,406*

74118

139991)

242920

11528d

Southeast

n=36,053*46378

89471)

155260

7368d

L147818

9031b15672

74374

Southwest

n=36,390*

* Total including all age groups c Total 4569 yearsa Total < 18 years d Total 70+ yearsb Total 18-44 years


services and needs in 1985 and 1986 as part of a process for developing the Early Childhood State Plan

Grant. The study indicated that 70% of the 11,423 children in this age group are presently unserved.

Additionally, it was found that the services provided for thi.i population were both fragmented and

unevenly dispersed across the state. In fact, although there are 75 counties in the state, 27 (36%) were

found to have no early childhood services.

School-Aged Children With Disr,bilitief,

With regard to the schooi-age population, there is a significant need for personnel to provide

services to children with disabilities. Reflected in recent Arkansas State Department of Education (1988)

statistical findings are significant personnel needs, both in the areas of teacher and related related services

personnel. Shortages of personnel reflect only one facet of the extent of the inadequate technology

service provision to the school-age population in the state. Amore recent study (V anBiervliet & Parette,

unpublished manuscript), suggests that existing educational personnel have significant needs for

information relating to technology in numerous areas. Such needs ultimately affect the kinds and quality

of technology service provision rendered to the school-aged population in Arkansas.

The issue of lack of transitional services in Arkansas has recently come under considerable

scrutiny. An excellent example of a population affected by the lack of transitional services is reflected

in the Arkansas Department of Education Child Count. This activity resulted in the finding that there

were 5,953 persons with mental retardation, between 13 and 21 years of age who were enrolled in public

school programs in 1985. The transition to adulthood for many of these students reportedly was

anticipated to result in a work activities center or adult developmental center placement with a

nonvocational emphasis and with little or no opportunity for advancement to more integrated and

vocational placements. An indeterminate length of time typically elapses between the completion of

school services and the initiation of adult services. Work activities and adult developmental centers in

the state provide long-term static placements for approximately 1743 persons with severe disabilities.

These programs currently maintain waiting lists of approximately 313 persons who are without day

services. Only 50 of the 1743 clients (2.86%) were placed in competitive employment in 1984

(Woolcock & Smith, 1985).


Adults With DisabiOties

A significant area of need appears to exist in the area of community-based and independent

living services for persons with disabilities in Arkansas. During the past 5 years, the state has made a

commitment towards moving from highly segregated programs to programs aimed at the provision of

appropriate services to families and persons with disabilities in communities where they live. This

commitment is reflected in the Arkansas Departments of Human Services and Education mission

statements and state plans. Although the philosophical commitment to community-based services exists

at virtually all levels of the service networks, substantial problems exist in regard to implementation. The

numberof Human Development Center residents (segregated institutions) has been relatively stableover

the past 10 years (Braddock, Hemp, & Fugiura, 1986). The largest proportion ofresources is expended

on these services. A survey of consumers of developmental disabilities services in Arkansas (Lewis

& Smith, 1984) found that 90% of the respondents listed the improvement of community-based services

as the greatest need. Many of the other high priority areas listed were related i o community services, such

as vocational services, parent support, parent training, and early intervention.

With regard to the working age segment of the population, considerable needs for technology

and technology-related assistance are evident. According to the Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and

Training Center (1984), Arkansas ranks second in the nation in per capita of persons with disabilities,

with an estimated 12.7% of all working age Arkansans considered to be disabled. Based on U.S. Census

(1980) data, the Research and Training Center also ranks Arkansas first in the nation in persons between

16 and 64 years of age who report one or more disabilities, and 46th in labor force participation by

persons of working age who experience disabilities. Given the status of Arkansas with regard to lack

of participation in the work force by persons with disabilities, it is obvious that there is a real need for

the utilization of technology to make employment a reality for a greater number of Arkansans with

disabilities.

Elderly Individuals with Disabilities

On the other end of the age continuum, the elderly population, it is readily observed that


Arkansas ranks third in the United States with regard to the number of aging individuals per capita.

Recent studies (Demographic Research, Center for information Services, 1986; Division of Aging and

Adult Services, 1987) have suggested that a steadily increasing trend toward greater numbers of elderly

persons residing in the state will be observed. Although terms like "lifelong", "across all age groups",

and "comprehensive planning" frequently appear in the mission statements and state planning docu-

ments of various agencies/groups,very little attention has been given to the technology needs of elderly

persons with disabilities. Janicki, Knox, and Jacobson (1985) and Agosta et al. (1988) have estimated

that a significant number of elderly Arkansans have disabilities. These individuals' needs, unfortunately,

have failed to be addressed in most service delivery efforts to date. Service provision in the state has

principally focused on those persons at the beginning or middle phases of the life cycle. Services for the

aging population with disabilities has primarily consisted of financial support, i.e., Medicaid and SSI,

and nursing home placements. Nursing homes typically serve younger persons with severe disabilities,

persons who are chronically mentally ill, the elderly who are frail, younger persons with disabilities,

coupled with aging persons with disabilities. Thus, a considerable number of these placements fail to

meet the technology needs of elderly persons.

Needs Assessment Undertaken for the Development of the Arkansas Technology Access Plan

Taken as a whole, the aforementioned documentation are suggestive of significant technology

needs of persons of all age groups in Arkansas. In order to formulate a comprehensive technology state

plan, participants in TAARK deemed it necessary to formally ascertain the needs of persons with

disabilities across the age span in the state.

On January 4, 1989, a group of 17 individuals constituting the Coordinated Planning

Committee of TAARK met and discussed components of Public Law 100-407. A decision was made

to initiate surveys of both consumer and professional audiences in the state given the significant needs

for technology and related assistance which were evident in the state. A Consumer Needs Study Group

was organized to draft documents designed to assess the technology-related needs of persons with

disabilities, as well as to identify needs for training among professionals involved in service provision

to persons with disabilities. The format for the survey instruments included multiple choice questions


on specific technology-relevant issues and open-ended items allowing persons with disabilities, their

representatives, and professionals to provide additional input concerning recommendations, technology

needs, strengths, and service provisions in Arkansas. The resulting instrumentswere subjected to a series

of reviews and modifications by the entire Planning Committee which, by May of 1989, had grown to

a constituency of 45 persons representing persons with disabilities, their families, and 25 different or-

ganizations.

Consumer survey. Each participating agency and group was requested to provide a mailing

list of persons with disabilities . This request resulted in approximately 12,000 mailing labels being

submitted for use in the consumer survey which accessed a range of consumers including persons with

mental retardation, hearing impairments, and multihandicaps. Groups which participated by providing

mailing lists included: Advocacy Services, Arkansas Association for the Hearing Impaired, Arkansas

Easter Seal Society, Central Arkansas Area Agency on Aging, Coalition for the Handicapped,

Department of Human Services, Developmental Disabilities Services, Division of Rehabilitation

Services, Division of Services for the Blind, and Mainstream Living Center, which is an independent

living center funded through Title 7 Part B. In order to address the elderly population of the state, which

represents a significant component of the Arkansas population base (Division of Demographic Research,

1988), contact was made with publication headquarters for Arkansas Aging, a periodical of the Division

of Aging and Adult Services and the Arkansas Association of Area Agencies on Aging, and consent was

obtained to reproduce the Consumer Survey instrument in its newspaper. This publication has a

circulation of approximately 35,000 within the State of Arkansas. Consent was also obtained to

reproduce the Consumer Survey in the monthly newsletter disseminated by the Association for Retarded

Citizens/Arkansas which has a circulation of approximately 4,000. These three sources resulted in the

potential to reach approximately 51,000 Arkansans.

Return envelopes were included in the mailout of 12,000 survey instruments, though no return

envelopes were included in the surveys published in the newsletters. It was recognized from the outset

that this strategy would significantly affect return rates from the readership of these newsletters, yet

project budgetary constraints prohibited the use of return envelopes with such a volume of mailouts.

Surveys were mailed during the first week of April of 1989. A second mailing of 1200 surveys to 6 Area


Agencies on Aging located around the state was conducted in June of 1989 to insure a reasonable

response rate from the aging sector . A total of 2136 consumer survey forms were received as of June

30,1989. This reflects a return rate of approximately 18%.

Examination of the survey responses indicated that representation of all counties in the state

was reflected in returned survey instruments, and that the return rates from these counties typically

mirrored population densities of these counties. A majority of respondents reported that they

participated in an assessment or evaluation prim to obtaining their assistive devices/services. A majority

of respondents also reported that they were satisfied with the services they received for their assistive

devices. However, 53% of the respondents reported that they needed more information regarding

assistive devices/services. This need for information was supported by the high number ofunmet needs

reported in all categories of assistive devices/services. In some of these categories, such as reading,

recreation, hearing aids, using a computer, building accessibility, and specialized transportation,

consumers reported unmet needs more often than usage. With regard to the costs of assistive devices/

services to consumers, a majority of respondents reported expending less than $1,000 for technology

devices and services last year. The largest funding sources for assistive devices/services reported by

respondents were Medicare/Medicaid and consumers and/or their families. In thearea of travel practices

demonstrated by consumers, a majority of respondents indicated traveling only 1-20 miles to receive

their assistive devices/services, though 30% reported they had to travel over 50 miles to receive such

services. In the area of equipment purchasing practices, 27% of the respondents expressed having had

the opportunity to purchase assistive devices on a "buy-on-time", or credit plan, and 56% reported that

such a plan would be helpful to assist them in purchasing needed devices. A significant number of

respondents (28%) reported that they did not receive adequate training in the use of their devices, and

48% reported that they did not have an opportunity to try out devices before being required to pay for

them. A significant number of respondents (29%) voiced dissatisfaction with the length of time required

for the servicing of their devices when they were in need of repair.

Professional Technology Survey

In addition to the Consumer Survey, efforts were made during the information gathering phase

of Project TAARK to secure the input of professionals from across the state regarding their views


regarding technology-related needs. Each participating group in the project was requested to provide

a mailing list of professionals involved in service delivery to persons with disabilities in their respective

agency. In some instances, contacts were made with agencies/groups not directly involved in the

planning activity, e.g., state occupational therapy, physical therapy, social work organizations, and

copies of mailing labels secured. This process resulted in the names and addresses of approximately 2700

professional across the state being identified for use in the survey, representing the following agencies/

groups: Advocacy Services, Arkansas Area Agencies on Aging, Arkansas Chapter of American

Deafness and Rehabilitation Association, Arkansas Chapter of the American Speech and Hearing

Association,Arkansas Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, Arkansas Easter Seal

Society, Arkansas Occupational Therapy Association, Arkansas Physical Therapy Association, Arkan-

sas Rehabilitation Institute, Arkansas School for the Blind, Arkansas School for the Deaf, Arkansas

Spinal Cord Commission, Association for the Hearing Impaired, Association for Retarded Citizens/

Arkansas, Children's Medical Services, Coalition for the Handicapped, Department of Human Services

(DHS) Division of Aging and Adult Services, DHS Division of Developmental Disabilities Services,

DHS Division of Rehabilitation Services, DHS Divisir.. of Services for the Blind, and Mainstream

Living. A survey instrument was also sent to all educational administrators, i.e., superintendents,

principals, and special education supervisors via a mailing list provided by the Arkansas Special

Education Resource Center. Since the TAARK project was cooperating with the Arkansas Highway and

Transportation Department in its 5-year planning activities, surveys were sent to all recipients of

transportation via the mechanism of Highway Department funding streams.

A draft version of the Survey of Professionals instrument was prepared by the Consumer Needs

Study Group and, as with the Consumer Survey, was reviewed and modified on numerous occasions by

the entire Coordinated Planning Committee. The final version was printed and mailed in mid-April of

1989. Return envelopes were included in each instrument to facilitate return by recipients of the survey.

A total of 444 completed professional survey forms were received as of June 30, 1989. This reflects a

return rate approximately 16%.

Responses were received from professionals who worked with individuals who represented

the entire age range and all disability categories. Responses were also received from professionals who


work in all regions of the state. Professionals representing all disciplines submitted responses; a

surprisingly high percentage of the responses were returned by administrators. Direct Service

professionals, i.e. educators, therapists and counselors, however, represented the largest number of

respondents.

The need for information on services and devices that was reflected in the consumer survey

was also supported by the findings from the professional surveys. Professionals reported that they

needed additional information in all areas of technology and related services. The following areas were

reported as information needs by at least 20% of the respondents: work site modifications, telephone

usage, recreation, assistive listening devices, classroom adaptations, communication aids, aids for the

visually impaired, and computers. Over 67% of the respondents also reported that they received

insufficient training on technology and persons with disabilities during their college training. The

following training topics were ranked as greatest need by the respondents: matching needs of persons

with disabilities to technology, conducting assessments and evaluations, how technology can increase

vocational options, legislation and funding, clinical experiences in technology, and communication aids.

The professionals reported that they preferred to receive additional training on a local level if possible.

Goals and Objectives

Representing a cooperative effort to find solutions to the problems Arkansans with disabilities

have in obtaining needed technology, the Arkansas Technology Access Project (ARTAP) was designed

to address the technology needs of hundreds of thousands of persons with disabilities in the state.

ARTAP has evolved from the Technology Access for Arkansans (TAARK) project, a state-funded,

multi-agency collaborative technology state planning activity described previously on page 4. The

ARTAP planning endeavor reflects the unprecedented cooperation and direct involvement of over 48

persons representing persons with disabilities, their families and representatives, 25 different public and

private agencies in the state, vendors, and business. Efforts have been made to insure a high degree of

consumer involvement throughout the planning r rases of ARTAP. The Office of Technology

Assessment (1982) has reported that there is no "correct" amount of consumer involvement, and no easy

21


way to achieve effective involvement. It is important to note, however, that consumers have the level

of understanding and experience to ultimately assure appropriate technology delivery and use ( Office

of Technology Assessment, 1982).

The vehicles for insuring consumer input and participation in the planning processes for

ARTAP included open-ended survey items on questionnaires distributed to over 50,000 persons with

disabilities across the state, informal surveys of consumers by persons involved in the planning

processes, use of previous needs surveys conducted by other agencies/groups, and direct participation

by consumers at all levels of information gathering and decision-making in the development of this grant

proposal. The quintessence of the ARTAP planning processes was the designation of a Consumer

Advisory Committee to establish prioriti-s for the system. This decision, based on the unanimous

consent of all persons involved in the planning activities, reflects the recognition by all parties involved

in the design of ARTAP of the crucial role in decision-makingprocesses played by those who will benefit

most from the system.

This proposal reflects the efforts of persons representing persons having disabilities as well as

a cadre of organizations serving persons who have disabilities. Their shared vision has been crystallized

into the following goals, objectives, activities, and anticipated outcomes which are delineated in the

following section. In a most basic sense, the goals do not diverge significantly from those identified in

the regulations governing applications for assistance under P.L. 100-407. However, these goals are

clearly linked to the unique needs of Arkansans with disabilities as identified during the ARTAP

planning phases. They represent a systems approach towards providing appropriate assistive technology

and technology-related assistance for all persons having disabilities in the state. Similarly, the

objectives, activities, and outcomes specified herein are indicative of an attempt to implement a

comprehensive systems change across the state with regard to the provision of assistive technology and

technology-related assistance.

Following is list of the ARTAP goals and objectives. Detailed descriptions of these goals,

objectives, related activities, evaluation procedures, and timlines are presented in the Plan of

Activities and in the Evaluation Plan section.


Goal 1:To develop an ongoing, consumer-driven planning and evaluation system.

Objective 1.1: To establish an advisory council appointed by the Deputy Director of

the Department of Human Services (DHS), Division of Rehabilitation

Services.

Objective 1.2: To identify barriers to state plan implementation and develop solutions

to these barriers,

Objective 1.3: To evaluate the implementation of the state technology plan.

Goal 2:To develop a coordinated information/service system.

Objective 2.1: To develop a computer-based information and referral network

accessible to all Arkansans.

Objective 2.2: To disseminate the information system across the state.

Objective 2.3: Evaluation of the Technology Information System.

Goal 3:To facilitate the development and/or expansion of Technology Access

Centers (TACs) across the state.

Objective 3.1: To establish six (6) Technology Access Centers.

Objective 3.2: To provide educational resources to existing systems serving the

educational community.

Objective 3.3: To provide additional resources to a vocational center developed

through the Division of Rehabilitation Services.

Objective 3.4: To evaluate the Technology Access Centers.

Goal 4:To establish a marketing and public awareness campaign to promote the

benefits and use of technology for persons with disabilities.

Objective 4.1: To develop a comprehensive marketing and public awareness plan to

enhaice public awareness/acceptance of people with disabilities, to

heighten public awareness/acceptance of technology and its use, and to

heighten public awareness of ARTAP itself.

Objective 4.2: To implement a comprehensive marketing and public awareness

campaign.


Objective 4.3: To evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign toward enhancing public

awareness, awareness of technology and its benefits.

Goal 5:To develop coordinated training activities for consumers, their families,

professionals, employers and the general public concerning technology -

related services.

Objective 5.1: To identify training needs and mechanisms for training.

Objective 5.2: To develop and implement a system of training.

Objective 5.3: To evaluate the ARTAP training system.

Goal 6: To develop a statewide system for equipment exchange of used assistive

devices.

Objective 6.1. To create a registry of equipment statewide and regionally.

Objective 6.2: To evaluate the Equipment Exchange Program.

Goal 7: To improve interagency cooperation in the development of consumer

responsive policies and procedures regarding technology services.

Objective 7.1: To establish an Interagency Council.

Objective 7.2: To evaluate the effectiveness of the interagency activities.

Goal 8:To establish a network of community-based technology specialists respon-

sive to consumers and their families.

Objective 8.1: To develop regional technology teams.

Objective 8.2: To provide training and technical assistance to the technology teams and

to persons in the regions.

Objective 8.3: To evaluate the network of regional technology specialists.

Goal 9: To develop, implement, and evaluate a User-to-User network.

Objective 9.1: To identify individuals to participate in a User-to-User network on a

state and regional basis.

Objective 9.2: To disseminate information relating to the User-to-User network to the

TACs, and Regional Technology Specialists.

Objective 9.3: To evaluate the User-to-User network.


Plan of Activities

Goal 1: To develop an ongoing, consumer-driven planning and evaluation system.

Paramount to all concerns is a recognition that the involvement of consumers in all the planning

processes is critical to the success of a consumer-driven technology plan. This involvement is critical at

each stage in the life cycle of technologies (Office of Technology Assessment, 1982). In order to insure

that the system is designed to be truly consumer-responsive, there should be maximum opportunity for

consumer input, including active, majority participation in the board, advisory committees, and councils

(Technology Access for Arkansans, 1989). Since many consumers have never had the opportunity to

serve on such bodies, the system must also empower consumers to insure their participation is effective.

Consumer review and input should also be inherent in quality assurance.

In Arkansas, consumer involvement in the planning processes of service delivery systems and

in the evaluation of those systems has been minimal to date. In fact, data generated from a survey of

professionals in the state suggest that consumer participation in team processes are perceived as being

much less important than participation by traditional team members, i.e., professionals. Parent

participation in team processes was deemed to be important by only 43% of respondents in this survey,

while advocate participation was seen as important by only 25% of respondents. Similarly, procedures

providing for the active involvement of persons with disabilities and their families was viewed as being

a lower priority than other traditional types of activities such as early identification and evaluations of

needs.Interestingly, ongoing evaluation, identification and coordination of policies, resources, and

services, and the provision and payment for technology and serviceswere rated highly by the respondents

in this survey. Given such attitudes toward the involvement of consumers in developing service delivery

systems, it would appear that the design of a system in the state to provide assistive technology and

technology-related services to consumers and the subsequent evaluation of that system must utilize

consumers to the greatest extent possible. A Consumer Advisory Committee was designated to establish

Arkansas Technology Acces,, 23

priorities for a comprehensive technology plan in Arkansas, and this group has recommended that the

organization of an on-going consumer review panel was the second greatest priority for the conceptu-

alized state plan . In light of the perceptions of service providers in the existing system, it would appear

that planning, evaluation, and coordination of services in the design and implementation of sucha system

are also of critical importance.

Objective 1.1: To establish an advisory council appointed by the Deputy Director of the

Department of Human Services , Division of Rehabilitation Services.

Given that the Division of Rehabilitation Services has been designated as the lead agency to

administer the grant, the Deputy Director of this agency will be directly responsible for appointing an

Arkansas Technology Access Project (ARTAP) Advisory Council. This council will consist of 15

individuals c' which 9 (60%) will be persons with disabilitiesor re esentatives of groups of persons with

disabilities. An attempt will be made during the appointmentprocess to select a group of persons who

will, to the greatest extent possible, represent the various groups of persons with disabilities across the

state. This reflects recommendations made by TAARK (1989) (see Appendix E) and the Consumer

Advisory Committee (see Appendix G). The Deputy Director will appoint 6 (40%) persons to the

ARTAP Advisory Council representing professional groups/agencies and non-profit organizations. The

selection process will be completed by Oc,:nber 15, 1989, and, by design, will reflect a commitment to

insuring a majority consumer involvement in advisory activities. The ARTAP Advisory Council will

meet quarterly and more often as needed throughout the grant period. Its specific responsibilities will

include advising the Division of Rehabilitation Services Deputy Director, making recommendations re-

garding overall project development, and the review of Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for specific

technology services as delineated elsewhere in this proposal. An organizational chart of the ARTAP

framework is illustrated in Figure 3.

Objective 1.2: To identify barriers to state plan implementation and develop solutions to

these barriers.

A variety of barriers have been identified which impact upon systems designed to facilitat


greater use of technology among persons with disabilities (Developmental Disabilities Program, 1984;

Galvin, 1989; Developmental Disabilities Program, 1986; Governor's Task Force on Technology and

Disabilities, 1987; Office of Technology Assessment, 1982). Some of these barriers are particularly

important at one stage of the technology cycle, while other barriers become vpparent throughout the life

process of a system. This suggests a need to continually provide the means for identification of barriers

Arkansas Technology Access ProgramOrganization Chart

DHS DIVISION OF REHABILITATIONSERVICES DEPUTY DIRECTOR

-1.1lal

ADVISORY COUNCILINTERAGENCY

COUNCILROGRAM DIRECTOR

TECHNOLOGY ACCESSFOR ARKANSANSSTUDY GROUPS

TECHNOLOGYINFORMATION SYSTEM

TECHNOLOGYACCESS CENTERS

REGIONAL TECHNOLOGYSPECIALISTS

Figure 3. An illustration of the Arkansas Technology Access Program (ARTAP) structure.

in a technology service system which inhibit the effectiveness of persons with disabilities from gaining

optimal benefits from that system.

In Arkansas, a variety of public and private organizations host public forums annually such that

input may be gained from consumers and families regarding the quality of services provided in the state.

These open forums are included in the meetings of such diverse groups as the Governor's Developmental

Disabilities Planning Council, the Coalition for the Handicapped, and the Division of Rehabilitation

Services. Issues relevant to ARTAP implementation will be included in as many of these forums as

possible throughout the grant period. Additionally, a statewide Annual Technology Conference will be

held in conjunction with ARTAP implementation processes, providing a primary mechanism for

consumers and professionals alike to identify barriers toward attainment of ARTAP goals as well as to


generate solutions to such barriers. Reports of identified barriers will also be submitted to the TAARK

Study Groups for evaluation and problem solving.

Given that each Technology Access Center (TAC) (see Goal 3 for additional information about

the Technology Access Centers) will be responsible for assisting persons with disabilities to secure

needed technology and/or related services, telephone calls will be made by Technology Information

System (TIS) (see Goal 2 for additional information about the Technology Information System) staff to

eac;i service recipient within 2 months of their accessing the system to ascertain the existence of barriers

in receiving services. Quarterly progress reports will also be obtained from each TAC during the grant

implementation phase wherein barriers toward the attainment of goals and objectives specified in

proposals submitted by these service sites and solutions to the barriers are identified. Another means of

identifying barriers toward attainment of ARTAP goals and objectives will be the examination of data

generated from the Governor's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council (DDPC) state plan

activities. Barriers identified in this state plan evaluation which have specific relevance to the provision

of assistive device technology and related services can be readily ascertained. Finally, comprehensive

needs assessment of Arkansans will be initiated during the third year of implementation to determine the

impact of the ARTAP project. These assessments will include all persons who have accessed the TIS,

the TACs, as well as persons who are members of various consumer and professional organizations that

are identifiable via available mailing lists acquired by CIS personnel. This identification of barriers and

solutions will constitute an ongoing process throughout the duration of ARTAP.

Objective 1.3: To evaluate the implementation of the state technology plan.

Evaluation has traditionally been perceived as an end point activity, though ideally it should

be considered as an ongoing, cyclical process. Evaluation of the ARTAP state plan will assume a

multifaceted approach to insure comprehensive, cyclical monitoring of implementation efforts. Wilk-

erson (1989) has identified three specific aims of evaluation activities that impact upon systems designed

to provide technology and related services to persons with disabilities. These include: (1) compliance

evaluation , (2) efficiency evaluation, and (3) effectiveness evaluation. Compliance evaluation focuses

on program monitoring, or gathering and using information to insure that a program is operating within


a set of standards. Efficiency evaluation hinges on gathering and using information to insure that a

program is more productive or cost effective. Effectiveness evaluation denotes the gathering and using

of information to insure that a program is more successful and determines how well a program is

accomplishing its goals, Each of these three types of evaluation will be built into the ARTAP system

and will be attained through a variety of specific evaluative strategies noted below.

The Deputy Director of Division of Rehabilitation Services as well as the project director of

ARTAP will work closely with the staff of the federal technical assistance support system to continually

evaluate implementation activities and their impact. Within the Division of Rehabilitation Services there

is also an internal grant monitoring process (refer to Appendix N and the Management Plan for

additional information about this process) which is an inherent part of any grant secured for the provision

of services. This process will also be used to monitor and evaluate the implementation of ARTAP. The

Technology Access for Arkansans (TAARK) project study groups described previously in this proposal

will be continued throughout the implementation phase of the grant. These study groups will submit

reports periodically to the ARTAP Advisory Council for consideration and review, focusing on

consumer issues, funding mechanisms, activities of national models for technology service delivery,

personnel issues, information dissemination and public awareness, and legislation and administrative

policies. Such reports will serve to provide supplementary monitoring and evaluation information to the

Deputy Director, ARTAP Project Director, and the ARTAP Advisory Council.

In an effort to maximize the input of consumers of technology, the ARTAP Advisory Con ail

members will additionally make informal contacts with consumers of technology throughout the state.

These contacts will be initiated by consumers, The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of ARTAP

Advisory Council members will be provided as public information through newsletters, surveys, and

other mechanisms, such that direct contact can be made with these board members by consumers. In

addition, public forums provided at meetings of the DDPC, Coalition for the Handicapped, Association

for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas, Division of Rehabilitation Services, and the State Technology

Conference will serve as important vehicles for consumer input.

One of the principle means of evaluating the implementation efforts of A MAP will be through

the use of evaluation forms provided to each consumer accessing the system at the various Technology


Access Centers (TACs). Each consumer who is provided with a service from these centers will be

encouraged to evaluate their satisfaction with the TAC and with the overall system. The completed

evaluation forms will be mailed directly to the Technology Information System (TIS) for data entry and

action (in the event of dissatisfaction). Random telephone interviews with consumers of technology and

technology-related services provided b., the system will also be attained periodically to evaluate the

effectiveness of the ARTAP system. These contacts will be made by personnel of the TIS, with the

information being stored for retrieval and dissemination to the Advisory Committee, to the TACs, and

to other groups as requested.

During the third year of the grant, statewide consumer and professional surveys will be

prepared, disseminated, and analyzed. These surveys will be designed in such a way as to enable

comparison with the results of the TAARK 1989 surveys (see the Needs Assessment section for further

information about the TAARK technology needs surveys). The survey instruments will be designed by

a team of consumers and professionals. Particular concern will be placed on items concerning

technology awareness and accessibility.

A final means of evaluation of ARTAP implementation efforts will focus on periodic

examinations of past statistical data relating to ABLEDATA usage and other information contacts

contrasted with current contacts made by consumers and professionals around the state. For the past 4

years, the Division of Rehabilitation Services has been maintaining a Accord of requests from consumers

and professionals regarding assistive devices for persons with disabilities. The number of contacts to

ARTAP will be immediat,....ly available from computer storage at the various TACs and the TIS, providing

quantitative measures of the impact of ARTAP activities on the attitudes and opinions of Arkansans.

Finally, a comparison will be made between the policy barriers that are identified and the success of the

solutions to those barriers.

Goal 2: To develop a coordinated information/service system.

Any service delivery system for assistive technology is a distribution system ((Enders, 1989).

This distribution is only as good as the information which supports it, with collaboration from both


service providers and consumers being necessitated to develop and maintain the system.

Based on the findings of the Technology Access for Arkansans Project (TAARK, 1989),

and survey data generated by this project , there appears to be a considerable need in the state for a

coordinated information/service system. In Table 21, it can be seen that of 444 respondents representing

public and private agencies around the state, 55% viewed information dissemination as being a very

important priority. In addition, 52% of the respondents believed public awareness of the effectiveness

and availability of technology to be a priority. Similarly, a Consumer Advisory Committee which

established the priorities for a comprehensive technology system in Arkansas :dentified a central

information system as being among the top three needs for the state.

The need for a more effective information and referral system for persons with disabilities has

been a recognized need in Arkansas for some time. In 1985 the Arkansas Legislature passed a resolution

to establish a statewide information and referral system. Unfortunately, the system was never developed

although many agencies and groups have been involved in the planning of such a service.

A large volume of information and services are currently in existence regarding technology and

related services, yet the system is fragmented to such a degree that little coordination of services and

dissemination of information occurs across subsystems. This results in the unfortunate situation of

technology being available, though people who need the technology are unable to access it.

A number of important components of a central information/service system have been

identified as being of importance for the provision of technology and related services in Arkansas. It is

well-recognized based on TAARK (1982), the Consumer Advisory Committee, and TAARK survey

data findings, that such a system must provide technology information of relevance to all persons having

disabilities with all types of needs. The system must be accessible via a number of levels of entry to

accommodate all persons in various environmental settings. Also, it has been noted that the system

should enable interface/interaction among all potential users of the system. State-of-the-art technology

must be utilized in such a system to allow access by all persons across all settings. There should also be

a strong evaluative component in order to examine usage, degrees of satisfaction expressed by users,

suggestions for enhancement of the system, and other types of evaluative information. In order to

develop such an information system, a management framework would be necessiated to design, develop,


implement, maintain, and support the system. Finally, it is acknowledged that an information system

must facilitate the development of cooperative agreements and the optimum utilization and development

of existing resources in order to provide comprehensive technology-related services to the citizens of the

state.

This goal will be achieved by three interrelated objectives: to develop a Technology Informa-

tion System (TIS); to disseminate the information system across the state; and to evaluate the effective-

ness of the system. The following timeline represents the planned onset and completion dates of tasks

that are designed to accomplish the objectives.

Goal 2 Activity Timeline10/89 2/90 6/90 10/90 2/91 6/91 10/91 2/92 6/92

tion System

System to T , CS

ate yst m to Tech Sp -cs

Conclucl TIS FP mess

Nnfo

Hire Dire* nd taff

!Gather Ark DataliaseI 1

!Develop Information 9yste1

Tra n TIS Stillf

est Info m

I Dissem a f-

Dissemi

Evaluate Technology Information SystemI III 1 r r 1 1

Objective 2.1: To develop a computer-based information and referral networkaccessible

to all Arkansans.

The Division of Rehabilitation Services will issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the

development of a Technology Information System by October 15, 1989. The RFP will be published and

sent out across the state both via mail services and state routing mechanisms between October 1, 1989,

and October 15, 1989. The procedures developed by the Division of Rehabilitation Services will be

used to evaluate the proposals that are submitted. A review panel with a mebership of at least 60%

comsumers will be established by the Director of the Division of Rehabilitaion Services to review and

make recommendations regarding awards to the agency's Grants Review Committee which in turn will


make recommendations to the Deputy Director. The review process will be completed by January 4,

1990. Awards will be announced on this date. In order to inform groups and individuals about ARTAP

and to teach them how to prepare applications for ARTAP's RFPs, a statewide workshop will be

conducted by the Division of Rehabilitation in October 1989.

Personnel

The development of a computer-based central repository of information, or central information

system, will be the first priority in the implementation efforts of ARTAP. Project personnel will be

employed to conduct the multifaceted activities inherent in its implementation. The TIS will be staffed

by 6 individuals consisting of a Project director, three Information Specialists, an administrative

assistant, and a Marketing Specialist. An organizational chart reflecting the TIS staff personnel and their

responsibilities is presented below in Figure 4.

The Project Director will be a staff position with the Division of Rehabilitation Services and

will be employed according to published hiring procedures utilized by this state agency. The direct link

Technology Information SystemOrganizational Structure

Informationspecialist

(fundingemphasisand coordinator of

specializedassistive devicecenters)

Project Director(supervision,coordination,and evaluation)

InformationSpecialist(coordinatorof training)

Information MarketingSpecialist Specialist

(coordinator (developmentof regional of marketingtechnology plan)specialists)

Admin.Assistant(officemanage-ment)


coordinate the TAC's, and coordinate the evaluation of ARTAP. Each TAC will be operated by an

organization separate from the TIS, therefore the Director's TAC coordination responsibilities will

mainly consist of monitoring grant-related activities and assisting in maintaining effective lines of

communication between the TAC's. Although funded by the Division of Rehabilitation Services, the

Director and all other positions associates with the TIS will be located at the host organization for the

TIS. Employment of this Director will be accomplished by November 1, 1989.

The three positions of Information Specialist will assume unique yet related functions in the

TIS. Two Information Specialists will be grant-funded positions, and the third will be funded by the

Division of Rehabilitation Services. All of the Information Specialists will be responsible for responding

to information requests that arrive via phone, letter, or in person. The information that they provide will

be in a medium (e.g., voice, Braille, TDD, print, or video) that is appropriate for the person making the

request. This will involve using existing electronic bulletin boards and databases, using the database

system created for Arkansas (see the following Arkansas Database Development section), and using

the print and video materials stored throughout the information network. All Information Specialists will

be responsible for compiling technology-related information that would be entered into the TIS for

dissemination. The Specialists will assume primary responsibility for maintenance ofcomputer files and

print/audio/video materials within the TIS. The Information Specialists will be employed by February

15, 1990.

One grant funded Information Specialist will have specific expertise in funding mechanisms

for assistive technology and relate(' services. The Specialist will assist in gathering and disseminating

information about funding polices, practices, barriers, and solutions in Arkansas and across the country.

The Specialist will also coordinate the Funding and Policies Study Group and work closely with the

Interagency Council on funding and policy issues. Collaborative work on policy change regarding

insurance and other forms of third party payment will be a crucial component of this individuals job

responsibilities. This person will also be responsible for coordinating the Equipment ExchangeProgram

( see Goal 5 for information concerning the Equipment Exchange Program ).

The other grant funded Information Specialist will serve as the Training Coordinator. The

Training Coordinator will assist in targeting technology training needs throughout the state, organize

34


the resources necessary to meet the needs, and coordinate the evaluation of the effectiveness of training

activities. This Specialist will work closely with the Technology Access Centers (see Goal 3 for

additional information about the Technology Access Centers) to accomplish these tasks. Based on

identified training needs and upon requests for training, the Training Coordinator will match the

expertise of persons within Arkansas and nationally to training needs. A database ofcourse instructors

will be maintained to assist in this task. The Training Coordinator will assist the TACs in achieving their

training goals by assisting in organizing training programs. The Training Coordinator will also be

responsible for organizing the yearly Arkansas Technology Access Conference and programs at appro-

priate meetings and conferences throughout Arkansas. In addition, the Training Coordinator will be re-

sponsible for developing and implementing systematic procedures for evaluating all training activities.

The third Information Specialist will be responsible for the coordination of the Regional

Technology Specialist Program (see Goal 7 for additional information about the Regional Technology

Specialist Program) and the User-to-User Network (see Goal 8 for additional information about the

User-to-User Network). Both of these tasks consist of statewide community-based outreach and

expansion of the service network. For the Regional Technology Specialist Program, the Information

Specialist will identify participants in all regions of the state, identify training needs of the participants,

assist in conducting preservice and inservice training, develop a manual of procedures and guidelines,

assist in providing technical assistance, coordinate fiscal management of the program, assist in marketing

the program, and coordinate the evaluation of the program. The User-to-User Network is principally a

volunteer organization of consumers who use technology and who are willing to share their experiences

with other consumers who are contemplating buying or otherwise using the same or similar technology.

The Information Specialist will assist in marketing the program, assist in identifying participants in all

regions of the state, assist in conducting orientation and training of participants, assist in developing and

maintaining a record keeping system, develop a manual of procedures and guidelines, coordinate fiscal

management of the program, troubleshoot as problems arise, and coordinate the evaluation of the

program.

Funding for the Marketing Specialist will be provided by the Division of Rehabilitation

Services in a full-time capacity. This staff person will ix assigned full time responsibility to ARTAP.


The primary job responsibilities of this individual will consist of developing marketing strategies relating

to technology applications with persons having disabilities. Such strategies will be designed to impact

upon the awareness of all Arkansans through a variety of media including print materials, production of

audio and visual media presentations, newspaper and newsletter layouts, and other mechanisms for

information dissemination. For more detailed description of planned marketing activities see Goal 4.

The Marketing Specialist will work closely with the ARTAP Advisory Committee, Project Director, the

Information Specialists, and the Training Specialist in the development of marketing strategies and also

serve as a resource person for resolving problems relating to public awareness which are reported to occur

in the various regions of the state. This staff person will be employed by February 15, 1990.

An administrative assistant will be employed to assist in data collection and storage, record

keeping, maintaining training and financial records, producing reports, and daily clerical activities in the

operation of the TIS. The secretary will be employed by February 15, 1990.

Arkansas Database Development

The strength of any information system is reflected in the quality (i.e., comprehensiveness and

accuracy) of the information it provides and the ease with which users can acc.-ns the information. In

order to ensure that the TIS ranks on both of these quality indicators, both national and Arkansas-based

information on technology and services will be gathered into a user friendly hypertext format.

One of the primary mechanisms available for the dissemination of information to persons with

disabilities are automated indexes, or databases s databases will be obtained and/or accessed

by the TIS, including BRS (ABELDATA), ERIC., u!,ecialNET, COMPUSERVE, DD Connection,

DeafNET, CEC's Technology Net, CO-Net, and other information systems as identified. The use of

multiple data bases in rehabilitation facilities has been shown to be highly cost effective (Shafer, 1985).

Existing databases, however, do not contain information that is specific to accessing technology in

Arkansas. The TIS needs to be able to provide consumers, their families, professionals, and the general

public with information on accessing services in their local community, funding provisions and other

procedures, and information about quality vendors. Two concurrent processes will take place in order

to fill this need: these are information gathering and hypertext software development.

A concerted and ongoing effort to identify resources for the provision of technology and related

3,


services in Arkansas and surrounding states will be undertaken throughout this project. ARTAP staff

will work closely with the DHS field offices to identify appropriate contacts in municipalities

throughout the state. Consumer and professional questionnaires will be designed such that persons

having expertise in the field of technology service provision can be identified. Questionnaires forwarded

to agencies, as well as telephone contacts to these agencies, will be used to acquire specific information

relevant to the kinds of technology related services provided by existing sub-systems of service delivery.

These contacts will also enable ARTAP personnel to examine referral for technology-related services

processes across the state, providing valuable information for decision-making and problem solving.

One excellent source of information relating to this statewide examination of existing resources is the

DDPC state plan data. An examination of existing registries will also be launched to gather information

which can be woven into the ARTAP service model. These registries would include, but not be limited

to the Arkansas Special Education Resource Center, Division of Rehabilitation Services, Arkansas

Occupational and Physical Therapy Associations, Arkansas Chapter of the American Speech and

Hearing Association, Arkansas Association of Special Education Administrators, Arkansas Association

of School Psychologists, and vendors of assistive device technology. Inherent in the review of these

existing registries would be the use of any of several techniques for accessing information, including

surveys, telephone calls, and the review of available print materials. Contacts made with any person

would involve an inquiry as to the types of technology-related services that s/he was providing to persons

with disabilities and eligibility requirements. Prioritization of these various sources of services would

proceed in the following manner: statewide service systems would be examined first, followed by

regional systems, and then local systems.

Letters of request will be forwarded to bordering states asking that information and printed

materials pertaining to the types of services provided be forwarded to the TIS staff for storage and

retrieval in the TIS. Local vendors of assistive technology and technology-related services as well as

groups/agencies providing such services will also be contacted and requested to provide information

needed to build the TIS. This information-gathering process will be functionally completed, in-place,

and available to the public by August 1, 1990, though the process of updating and revising the system

will be an on-going activity throughout the life of the system.


The information access system that will be developed for the TIS will incorporate state-of-the-

art hypermedia concepts and technologies. Hypermedia is an information storage and usage design that

enables the creation of unique information environments. Through hypermedia techniques text,

graphics, animations, and sound can be combined and outputed to suit individual needs. Any piece of

information can be connected and outputted with any other piece of information enabling the operator

to find as much or as little about a topic. Use of these technologies will enable the information system

to evolve with needs and to maintain more flexible output and input for future developments. Appropriate

use of the hypermedia approach will enable the TIS to output information to meet the needs of a broad

range of consumer needs through a wide range forms, such as Braille, audio, and visual.

In order to maximize the time available for this project, the development of the hypermedia

based information storage and retrieval system will occur concurrently with the information gathering

activities. Systems engineers and computerprogrammers will be contracted with in order to develop this

system. The design of the system will combine the features of existing referral systems, such as South

Carolina Handicapped Services Information System report and letter generation capabilities, with the

user friendliness and modularity of HyperCard programs, such as HyperAbleData. An object-based

programming environment such as HyperCard or LinkWays will be used to design the system to allow

rapid prototyping and so that modifications can be easily made as system requirements change. These

programming languages also provide the capability to disseminate information in a wide variety of

formats, e.g. visually, auditorily, and tactually. The system be designed to operate in a graphics-

based computer interface, such as the Macintosh operating system or Windows, in order to ensure that

it is easy to use and learn. The system will also be designed to operate on a computer that enables

multitasking. Multitasking capabilities will enable the Information Specialists to access requested

technology information even when they are in the middle of some other computer intensive task, such

as conference planning, when a phone inquiry arrives. Since such a massive amount of information will

be stored in the system a large digital storage device, such as large hard discs or compact discs, will be

required to store the system. Using eraseable compact disc technology will enable the TIS to easily

distribute the information system to others as the technology becomes more readily available. Prior to

tho design of the hypermedia program, a thorough search of the literature and a review of existing system


features will be conducted. The contractors' concept plan will be reviewed prior to programming to

ensure that their design meets ARTAP specifications. The system will will be available for initial testing

by August 1, 1990.

Training will be provided to the TIS staff between February 15 and August 1, 1990, in order

to activate the system and ensure optimum efficiency in disseminating information. Barrier awareness

training is deemed to be crucial in the training of persons providing services in the TIS given the need

for barrier-free access to the information. This training would also focus on the development of problem

solving strategies having relevance to both the state and local level. The TIS staff would also be trained

in advocacy skills since this would become an important function of these resource persons on a state

and local level. The information system will be fully operational by October, 1990.

Objective 2.2: To disseminate the information system across the state.

After the information system has passed field testing by the US staff, it will begin to be

distributed throughout the ARTAP network reflecting a centralized to petipheral approach to developing

the system. The development of Technology Access Centers (TACs) will occur parallel to that of the TIS

(see Goal 3 for a detailed description of TACs). In year 2 of the project, teams of regional technology

specialists (see Goal 7 for a detailed description of regional technology specialists) will be established

across the state to act as resource personnel in their respective regions. Information will flow outward

from the TIS to the various TACs, regional technology specialists, and to others accessing the system,

but information will also flow inward from these latter sources to the TIS. The hypermedia-based

information system will be made available for TAC staff and the regional technology specialists to use

in their locals. Since the information system will be designed to operate on readily available, low cost

microcomputers exiting equipment will be able to be used in most instances.

Between September 1 and November 1, 1990, information dissemination to the various TACs

across the state will begin, enabling a testing process of the TIS system. Personnel in the various TACs

will be trained during this period by TIS staff in the procedures relevant to accessing the TIS system as

well as in submitting data for ent into the system for statewide dissemination. In addition to instruction

on operating the information system, this training will focus on barrier awareness, advocacy, and


problem solving.

Between July 15,1991 and September 15, 1991, information dissemination to the 8 teams of

regional technology specialists will be a target activity. Many of these regional technology specialists

will have access to technology that would enable them to access data bases available in the TIS, which

they, in turn, would disseminate to persons on a local level. The information in the database will also be

published in a r;.ng binder format, the Information System Binder, for use by individuals and organiza-

tions who do not have access to computer equipment. This binder will be disseminated to agencies and

organizations involved with persons with disabilities, such as the 15 educational cooperatives in

Arkansas, as well as to others upon request. The Information System Binder will also be used as a training

tool for consumers, professional inservice, and for university students. The digital information system

and the Information System Binder will also be shared with persons involved with technology access in

other states.

In addition to digitally stored information, the TIS will also gather and make information

available in other formats such as Braille, text, audio tape, and videos. A concentrated effort will be made

to collect and disseminate information in video format since this is an excellent instructual medium and

video players are widely available throughout Arkansas. The TIS will also support the creation of video

tapes concerning technology that are needed in Arkansas.

Objective 2.3: Evaluation of the Technology Information System

Evaluation of the coordinated TIS will incorporate multiple evaluative techniques and sources

of information throughout the grant. One evaluation technique involves gathering satisfaction and

grievance information and analyzing it for patterns which highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the

system. Each person accessing the TIS will be contacted via a telephone call by the TIS staff within 2

weeks of their entry into the system to determine whether needed services were obtained and to ascertain

the recipient's level of satisfaction with services received. These contacts would be followedup within

2 months by a mail-out questionnaire sent to the service recipient from the TIS. Also, service recipients

will be made aware of grievance processes on their initial entry into the system. Since the Division of

Rehabilitation Services has been designated as the lead agency for the administration of ARTAP,


grievance processes would be accessed through the Division of Rehabilitation Services internal

procedures for lodging complaints. Persons who have used the information system will also be asked

to provide demographic information, information concerning their needs, and how they learned of the

TIS services.

Since needs assessments are an ongoing activity demonstrated by many public and private

agencies/groups, TIS personnel will insure that many of these annual needs asses;;ments, e.g., Division

of Rehabilitation Services, Governor's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Division of Aging

and Adult Services, etc., will contain questions having bearing on the TIS. At the beginning of the third

year of the ARTAP implementation phase, a comprehensive needs assessment will be conducted

involving all persons who have accessed the TIS system, as well as consumers and professionals who

are members of a variety of organizations that would provide mailing lists of their membership rosters.

A critical facet of this comprehensive needs assessment would be levels of satisfaction with the TIS

system.

Other forms of evaluation of the TIS would include (1) progress reports submitted from the

TAARK study groups which act in an advisory capacity to the ARTAP Advisory Council; (2) input from

the federal technical assistance program; (3) quarterly reports from the TACs ; (4) informal contacts

made by consumers with the ARTAP Advisory Council; (5) examination of the number of access

contacts made with databases available in the TIS by persons across the state; and (6) anecdotal records

maintained by the various regional technology specialists across the state that would h.; submitted on a

regular basis to the CIS. Evaluation activities will begin July 1, 1990, and will be ongoing throughout

ARTAP implementation.

Goal 3: To facilitate the development and expansion of Technology Access Centers across the

state.

It is well-established that a desirable component of any comprehensive technology service

delivery model is the development of physical sites where people can experience "hands-on" examina-

tion of available technology (Governor's Task Force on Developmental Disabilities, 1987; Office of


Technology Assessment, 1982). A great deal of assistive technology and related services exists across

many service subsystems in Arkansas, though due to lack of information dissemination across

subsystems, differences in eligibility criteria, and other barriers, individuals arc often unable to access

technology and services which are available. One approach to improving information dissemination and

direct services to persons having disabilities is the establishment of sites specializing in particular

technology service provision. Such sites would, by design, utilize existing facilities/services to the

maximum extent possible or be created anew in the absence of any existing resources in a particular locale

where the services are needed.

Objective 3.1: To establish six (6) Technology Access Centers

With the award of the grant to fund ARTAP, requests for prof osals (RFPs) will be published

and sent out across the state both via mail services and state routing mechanisms between October 1, 1989

and October 15, 1989. These RFPs will specify the development of 6 Technology Access Centers

(TACs). The general responsibilities of each TAC will be to freely provide information and hands on

demonstration concerning targeted technology devices and approaches to consumers, parents, profes-

sionals, employers, business, and the general public. The TACs will also provide and participate in

training activities concerning technology and awareness; provide technical assistance to consumers,

professionals, policy makers and the TIS; and generate information concerning technology and services.

In addition, TACs will provide formal evaluations/assessments and other services, such as therapy and

device construction, for a fee. Finally, each TAC will be required to participate fully in the evaluation

of its own activities and those of the statewide technology system. The TACs will maintain a record on

a database of the technology and information resources that it possesses, and this database will be shared

with the TIS, other TACs, Technology Specialists, and others across the state concerned with technology

access.

Each TAC will also establish an advisory board with at least 60% representation by persons

with disabilities and their families and representatives. The roles of these boards will be to: advise TAC

staff on issues concerning consumer accessibility; review plans and implementation oz the plans; assist

in evaluating the effectiveness of the TAC; and to assist the TACs to maintain close working relationships


with the target population.

Representatives from the TACs and the TIS will meet regularly to share information, to

evaluate progress, and to develop plans for future activities. During the the first year these meetings will

be monthly; during future years these meetings will be bi-monthly. Appropriate communication

technologies, such as conference calls, will be used to ensure that this process is carried out efficiently.

The procedures developed by the Division of Rehabilitation Services will be used to evaluate

the proposals that are submitted. A review panel with a membership of at least 60% consumers will be

Technology Access Centers

astaismistTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION SYSTEMCoordination of Technology AccessCenters

Information and ul ment oxchan s e

TECHNOLOGY ACCESSCENTER IN

COMMUNICATIONAugmentative

communicationComputer accessAssessment

TECHNOLOGY ACCESSCENTERS IN

INDEPENDENT LIVINGEnvironmental

modificatonsSelf-HelpAssessment

TECHNOLOGY ACCESSCENTER IN BLIND &VISUALLY IMPAIRED

Visual aidsNavigation aidsAssessments

TECHNOLOGYACCESSCENTER IN LANGUAGE &

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTTechnology applications

for LD and head InjuriesCognitive trainingAssessments

TECHNOLOGY ACCESSCENTER IN DEAF &HARD OF HEARINGAuditory aidsSignalling devicesAssessments

Figure 5. Illustration of the structure and functions of the Technology Access Centers.

established by the Director of the Division of Rehabilitation Services to review and make recommen-

dations regarding awards to the agency's Grants Review Committee which in turn will make recommen-

dations to the Deputy Director. The review process will be completed by January 4, 1990. Awards will


be announced on this date.

Five TACs would specialize in one of the following areas: (1) communication, (2) blind and

visually impaired, (3) cognitive and language habilitation,(4) deaf and hard of hearing, and (5)

independent living. Two TACs will specialize in independent liv..ig as it was determined that there was

a great need throughout Arkansas for these services. Except for the Independent Living TACs, each of

which will serve only half of the state, all other TACs will be responsible for proving services to the entire

state. Figure 5 reflects the general structure of the TAC system.

Each of the TAC areas has been identified as being of critical importance to enhance the

existing service delivery system and to optimize the success and efficiency of the TIS. Vocational

technology is deemed to be within the realm of the service responsibility of the Division of Rehabilitation

Services, and educational technology is deemed to be within the realm of the Arkansas Department of

Education. As such, no TAC focusing on these areas was identified as being of critical need for the

purposes of ARTAP, though development in each of these areas will be supported through other types

of activities. It should be noted that while on the surface there appears to be little distinction between

the Communication TAC and the Cognitive and Language Habilitation TAC, decision-makers havecon-

sistently noted that there should be specific technology services, i.e., cognitive development technolo-

gies, available for persons having learning disabilities and brain injuries given the fact that this

population has been generally ignored in the development of technology services in Arkansas.

Communication, on the other hand, will focus specifically on augmentative communication and related

types of technologies appropriate for non-speaking persons, and to access to computer equipment.

The TAC for blind and visually impaired will provide information, hands-on experiences,

training, and assesesments in assistive devices that can enhance the lives of persons with visual

impairments. Examples of these technologioes include auditory and tactile time and temperature aids,

talking file storage, electronic sensing devices, navigation aids, and tactile braillers.

The TAC for deaf and hearing impaired will provide information, hands-on experiences,

training, and assesesments in assistive devices that can enhance the lives of persons with hearing

impairments. Examples of these technologies include signalling systems, telephone amplifiers, hearing

aids, amplification systems, speech training aids, manual sign traing computerprograms, and telecaption

4 4


equipment.

The TACs for independent living will focus on technologies that will assist anyone with a

disability to function more successfully in the community. Due to the population base of Arkansas and

needs that were identified in the Needs Assessment section, these TAC's will place a special emphasis

on assisting elderly persons with disabilities. These TACs will provide information, hands-on experi-

ences, training, and assesesments on assistve technologies concerned with home management, personal

care, home modifications, architectural modifications, home health, and recreation.

Each site responding to the published RFP would clearly delineate in its proposal resources

available in the community that would be utilized in the provision of technology-related services for the

5 specified areas of human functioning described in the RFP. This would include interagencyagreements

in the case of several agencies/groups who wished to respond to the RFP. This information, in turn, would

be entered into the TIS for use during implementation of ARTAP. Each site would identify existing

hardware that would enable interface with the TIS, as well as to identify equipment that would be

necessitated to operate successfully. Each site would prioritize the acquisition of needed resources once

existing resources were identified in the proposal. Demonstration protocols for intake, service provision,

and follow-up would be developed and submitted in the proposal. Additionally, a description of the

specific types of services to be provided in the TAC would be an important component of each proposal

submitted. Procedures for the demonstration of equipment would be clearly described, and a procedure

for the collection of information, evaluation of data, and reporting of progress and accomplishments in

accordance with the RFP would also be specified.

Objective 3.2: Ti provide educational resources to existing systems serving the educational

community.

The Arkansas Special Education Resource Center (ASERC) is a federally-funded, non-profit

organization coordinated by the Department of Education and the Cabot School District. It functions

on a consultative model to school systems across the state. An important component of their existing

service delivery model is technology training. However, there are only a few persons in the ASERC who

have wide competencies in the area of technology which inhibits frequent involvement with the schools


requiring technology assistance. Given the fact that ASERC is an existing service system that addresses

educational applications of technology in the Arkansas schools, ARTAP will provide training to these

personnel on a regular basis so as to cultivate a greater diversity of technology-related skills. These skills,

in turn, would serve to provide information and direct services to school systems in need for such

services.

There are also 15 educational service cooperatives located across the state whicn are designed

to provide resources and training to school systems across counties. Established under The Education

Service Cooperative Act of 1985 [Acts of Arkansas 1985, No. 349, Si; A.S.A. 1947, S 80 -489], these

cooperatives are strategically located to provide services to 3-9 counties each with 10-35 school districts

benefitting therefrom. The cooperatives are located no more than 50 miles fromany school district office

in their service area and are designed to provide a variety of services contingent upon the needs of school

districts. Many of the staff at these cooperatives are heavily involved in providing technology services

to students in their school. They are also involved in training programs for teachers, therapists, and

parents. The cooperatives will participate in the information system developed tr, the TIS and the TACs.

Information will be provided to the cooperatives in both digital and print forms. Many of the cooperatives

already posses collections of equipment, information, and video tapes that can be used to promote

technology access in Arkansas. In addition staff of the cooperatives will participate in ARTAP training

activities.

Objective 3.3: To provide additional resources to a vocational center developed through

the Division of Rehabilitation Services.

The provision of assistive technology and related-services in the realm of vocational function-

ing are within the auspices of the Division of Rehabilitation Services. The Deputy Director of this agency

has committed resources toward the development of a center targeting the application of vocational

technologies for persons with disabilities and, as such, the development of a separate facility utilizing

ARTAP budgetary resources will not be necessary. However, the TIS staff will work closely with

personnel developing this facility to ensure that compatibility with the TIS is maintained such that all

information generated is disseminated to the TIS and, in turn, shated with other information sites across


the state. Support and training will also be provided to the vocational technology site personnel by

ARTAP staff.

Objective 3.4: To evaluate the Technology Access Centers

Both qualitative and quantitative evaluation techniques will be used to de,terinine the effective-

ness of the Technology Access Centers. Quantitative evaluation techniques will include each TAC

recording and analyzing the following information: the number and type of inquiries for technology

information they received; the number and purposes of evaluations and assessments that they provided;

the numbers of persons who participated in on-site and off-site equipment demonstrations; the number

of presentations and other training activities in which TAC staff participated; the number ofpersons who

participated in the TAC's training activities; the number and types of items the TAC added to the TIS

database; the numbers and types of publications and other informational materials produced and

disseminated by the TAC; and the participation of TAC staff in marketing activities. In addition to

recording the number of individuals served by the TACs, information concerning the characteristics of

the "clients", including age, type of disabilities, address, technology needs, and how they learned about

the TAC's services. Semi-annual summary and analysis of this information will provide an accurate

picture of each TAC's activities. This anaiysis will also delineate the characteristics of the TAC's

customers and the effectiveness of various marketing strategies.

Qualitative evaluation will consist of asking persons who have received services from the TAC

to indicate their satisfaction with the services, criticism of the services, and recommendations for

improvements. Each person who accesses the TAC services will receive a questionnaire. Service

recipients will be informed of the ARTAP' s grievance processes. Semi-annual summary and analysis

of these instruments and complaints will provide information concerning the quality of the l'AC's

services. This information will be provided to the TIS, to the ARTAP Advisory Committee, and to the

Division of Rehabilitation Services.

Goal 4: To establish a marketing and public awareness campaign to promote the benefits anduse

of technology for persons with disabilities.


The need for increased awareness of technology and knowledge of specific assistive devices

among individuals with disabilities, parents, professionals, and advocates is well recognized. Informa-

tion regarding available technologies is typically disseminated through publicly financed or publicly

operated programs for persons with disabilities. Information is often fragmented in light of the fact that

many of the existing programs target specific audiences and are deficient in coordination efforts. Thus,

as noted by the Office of Technology Assessment (1982), strengthened information dissemination in a

coordinated manner is a critical need. Similarly, the Developmental Disabilities Program (1982) of

Minnesota has net' . awareness of technological advancements should be increased among persons

with disabilities anu their families, professionals, policymakers, and the general public.

In Arkansas, it has been recognized that there is no general public awareness campaign

curreney existing to address the afofementioned need area. Earlier findings of the Technology Access

for Arkansans (1989) Information Dissemination and Public Awareness Study Group have indicated

that a centralized, comprehensive information system accessible by all Arkansans with disabilities

should be marketed to all citizens for use. The following timeline represents the planned onset and

completion dates of tasks that are designed to accomplish the objectives.

Objective 4.1: To develop a comprehensive marketing and public awareness plan to

enhance public awareness /acceptance of people with disabilities, to heighten public

Goal 4 Activity Timeline10/89 2/90 6/90 10/9 2/91 6/91 10/9 2/92 6/92

0 1

rket

Deve

ing pecl list

op ark ing Ian

om itt Re iew

Prepa e rell ina y M teri Is

Implement Marketing Plan

Evaluate Marketin and Public Awareness Cam al n


awarenesslacceptance of technology and its use, and to heighten public awareness of

ARTAP itself.

A comprehensive marketing and public awareness plan will be developed by the Marketing

Specialist, and a marketing firm and reviewed and approved by the ARTAP Advisory Committee no later

than April 4, 1989.

The comprehensive marketing plan will include a variety of activities. Target audiences for

the campaign will first be identified for marketing strategies, e.g., employers, consumers, general public,

etc. Materials will then be developed fur use in the campaign. Television and radio public service

announcements (PSAs) will be designed to focus on various issues relating to technology, such as its use

in recreation, education, daily living, and employment. Press packets will be prepared which include

guidelines for writing about persons with disabilities, background regarding ARTAP, and human interest

stories highlighting how technology has impacted upon and enhanced the quality of life for specific

persons with disabilities. Factsheets and/or brochures will be prepared relative to technology etiquette.

"Ad slicks" will be developed that are suitable for reproduction and which promote the use of technology

with persons having disabilities. Quarialy news releases announcing the initiation of ARTAP as well

as progress of the project will be developed during the implementation phase. A series of project

description/access brochures will be developed that target various audiences, including employers,

educators, persons with disabilities, parents, and other groups.

Important resources for the awareness campaign will be the print, video, and slide show

materials that were developed by the Division of Rehabilitation Services' Explorer Program (Gaskin &

Long, 1987). The developers of the Explorer Program used Arkansas-based examples of persons using

assistive technology to produce the nationally acclaimed multimedia awareness program.

All marketing materials as well as the proposed distribution strategies will be reviewed by the

ARTAP Advisory Committee and its subcommittees by July 15, 1990. Consumer and advocacygroups

will be provided the opportunity to review the marketing materials and strategies that are developed. This

review process will result in the marketing materials and distribution plan being revised by August 1,

1990.

Objective 4.2: To implement a comprehensive marketing and public awareness cam.


paign.

Implementation of the marketing and public awareness campaign will entail a multifaceted

approach. Television and radio PSAs will be distributed to stations in Little Rock and surrounding states.

These PSAs will be distributed to cable companies throughout the state. A consumer organized/hosted

press conference/reception to announce the initiation of ARTAP and its Technology Information System

will be conducted. All press attendees will be provided with press packets containing relevant marketing

materials developed for this audience. Press packets will be sent to all print and new media resources

throughout the state. These packets will contain, among other materials, 3-4 human interest stories

relevant to persons with disabilities and technology, and a list of persons in their area who are available

for interview. Updates of information regarding ARTAP and its activities will be disseminated via

quarterly news releases. "Ad slicks" on technology will be distributed on a wide scale to all printed news

media, trade publications, pertinent organizations, civic clubs, and other targeted audiences. Talk shows

and news shows that focus on technology utilization and its benefits with persons having disabilities will

be promoted on radio and television. Brochures will be distributed widely throughout the state to

targeted audiences such as employers, educators, consumers, and other groups. ARTAP personnel will

participate in conferences and conventions statewide to promote the project. This will include such

meetings as the Special Show for educators, Arkansas Rehabilitation Association, Arkansas Council for

Exceptional Children for special educators, and meetings of physicians, businessmen, potential employ-

ers, and advocacy groups. A consumer/parent/professional speakers' bureau will be developed

comprised of persons willing to make presentations about rnple with disabilities and the benefits of

using technology. Inherent in these presentations will be disability simulations that will enhance

sensitivity to individuals with disabilities. ARTAP will utilize existing speakers' bureaus developed by

the Coalition for the Handiopped and other consumer groups in the state.

In addition, information about ARTAP and its information services will be included in the

statewide barrier awareness program that has been coordinated by the Association for Retarded Citizens.

This program is conducted in schools and other public facilities and includes a wide range of simulation

activites designed to sensitize people to the challenges facing persons with disabilities.

The production of public awareness campaign materials will begin in April 1990 and


preliminary materials will be available by August 1, 1990. The statewide implementation of the

marketing plan will commence on August 1, 1990. The development and revision of marketing

materials, however, will be an ongoing activity throughout the life of the project.

Objective 4.3: To evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign toward enhancing public

awareness, awareness of technology and its benefits.

Evaluation of the ARTAP marketing and public awareness campaign will involve recording

and analyzing a wide variety of events including: the number of times Public Service Announcements

(PSAs) are aired; the number of times that articles appear in press, as well as the types of publications

in which they appear; the number of "ad slicks" that are reproduced in written publications; the number

of brochures distributed to the general public, professional audiences, consumers, and other groups; the

number of news/talk shows on which information relating to technology and its uses; the number of

presentations relating to technology usage with persons with disabilities made at conferences and

conventions; and the number of presentations made via the consumer/professional speakers' bureau. A

statewide "clipping service" will be designed to locate and excerpt such articles for storage in the

Technology Information System. Pre- and posttests will be used in presentations to determine the level

of expanded awareness created. A final component of the evaluation process will be the number of

persons who access the Technology Information System and TACs who respond to a question regarding

the source of their knowledge of ARTAP and correspondingly voice their awareness of ARTAP as a

result of some particular component of the campaign, e.g., a television PSA or brochure.

Goal 5: To develop coomlinated training activities for consumers, their families, professionals,

employers and the general public concerning technology-related services.

One of the major categories of problems related to the use of existing technology is that of the

constellation of problems which evolve from the lack of knowledge and training regarding technology

(Developmental Disabilities Program, 1982). More recently, LeBlanc (1989) succinctly noted that

training in the area of assistive technology should be a high priority for all the helping professions given


the complex nature of the problem. In Arkansas, available data suggests that significant training needs

are apparent for providers of technology services to persons with disabilities. In fact, 67% of

professionals surveyed have indicated that they were inadequately trained at the college preparatory

level to deal with the multiplicity of technology needs demonstrated by persons with disabilities.

Objective 5.1: To identify training needs and mechanisms for training.

Based on survey data generated from both consumer and professional surveys conducted in

March through June of 1989, a significant need appears to exist in Arkansas relating to the training of

these groups in the area of assistive technology and related services. The five greatest training needs

areas identified by the 444 professional respondents in this survey were: matching the needs of persons

with disabilities to technology (54%); conducting assessments and evaluations (42%); increasing

vocational options through the use of technology (41%); patterns of technology needs for persons with

disabilities (39%); and computers (37%). These findings provided support to the findings and recom-

mendations published in the TAARK (1989) Proceedings of the DeGray Lodge Retreat, in which

training was identified as a critical need within the state.

The various study groups of the TAARK project are currently active as functioning entities and

will remain active in an advisory capacity to the ARTAP Advisory Council, reporting on identified

training needs in the six issue areas previously delineated [see Section (2)]. Existing needsassessments

conducted by a variety of public and private agencies will be examined during the first year of ARTAP

implementation such that appropriate strategies may be developed for meeting the technology training

needs of these groups. Ongoing training needs will be identified as a function of contacts made with the

TIS, each TAC, and, in the third year, through the regional technology specialists.

Objective 5.2: To develop and implement a system of training.

Numerous vehicles exist whereby information and training may be provided to large audiences

of both consumers and professionals involved in technology service provision. 1'IS staff as well as TAC

personnel will conduct training activities in the area of assistive technology at the state meetings for the

following groups: Association for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas, Department of Education Special Show,


Arkansas Association on Deafness, Division of Aging and Adult Services, Arkansas Rehabilitation

Association Conference, and the Arkansas Association for Learning Disabilities. In 1991, the Self-Help

for Hard-of-Hearing International Conference will be hosted in Arkansas and ARTAP personnel will

develop appropriate training activities to be incorporated into the program of this meeting. It is projected

that at least 300 consumers and professionals per year will receive training through ARTAP.

Since colleges and universities are principle sources of training for professionals who will be

providing assistive technology and related services in the future, ARTAP personnel will develop

interdisciplinary, university-based training activities that will be extended to at least 100 students per

year from various fields of endeavor, including speech therapy, occupational and physical therapy,

rehabilitation counseling, and special education. In each of these interdisciplinary, university-based ac-

tivities, information regarding the ARTAP implementation efforts will be disseminated.

Contacts will be made with numerous public and private agencies in an effort to develop

cooperative in-service training activities whereby information is provided relative to the implementation

of ARTAP. These cooperative efforts will result in the provision of at least 12 inservice training sessions

per year being provided to identified target audiences.

Coordination of Training Activities

In light of the fact that most public and private agencies/groups are already involved in the

provision of training activities to their personnel and/or target service populations, it is important that

ARTAP utilize existing training models to the maximum extent possible to provide training in the area

of technology and related services. Efforts will be made to incorporate technology training into the

various activities funded by the University of Arkansas-University Affiliated Program which currently

acts as a conduit for numerous projects related to the field of developmental disabilities. Cooperative

training activities for professionals and consumers alike will be developed with the Research and

Training Centers within the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Non-profit agencies such as the

Arkansas Easter Seal Society and the Arkansas Special Education Resource Center will also be contacted

and collaborative training activities will be developed in the area of assistive technology ar..i related

services. Another excellent source for the coordination of training regarding technology is the

Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program (RCEP). Given this agency's commitment to ongoing


training of professionals involved in technology service provision through the Division of Rehabilitation

Services, an ideal mechanism exists wlich ARTAP may access and contribute to in the area of

professional training. A variety of other state agencies will be contacted with cooperative training

endeavors developed subsequent to these contacts. These agencies will include, but not be limited to,

the Division of Aging and Adult Services, Division of Developmental Disabilities Services, Arkansas

Spinal Cord Commission, Children's Medical Services, and the Arkansas Department of Education.

An interesting illustration of cooperation in training involves arrangements that have been

made with the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and ARTAP. The Highway Depart-

ment currently conducts a training program for paratransit drivers in the state. It has been agreed that

ARTAP personnel can provide valuable information to participants in this program. Basically, the

program is designed to terminate in licensing for paraprofessionals who drive AHTD-funded vehicles

across the state. In such a collaborative training capacity, ARTAP staff will be able to disseminate

important information regarding transportation and related technology services needed by persons with

disabilities. ARTAP personnel will house selected information having bearing on funding issues in a

library on-site at. the Highway Department. A library has been established previously at this site as a

resource in the area of transportation. Persons making contact with this agency would be informed that

resources are available which address funding issues pertaining to technology and transportation.

Itnplementation of the System

In the development phase of the TIS, identification of existing technology resources around

the state will be completed. This process will result in specific target audiences being identified for

ARTAP training efforts. Training in the use of particular technologies will then be provided at each of

the various otganizational meetings of consumers and. professionals. These meetings will include, but

not be limited to, the Association for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas Annual Conference, Arkansas

Department of Education Special Show, Arkansas Association of the Deaf Biennial Conference, the

DHS Division of Aging and Adult Services Conference on Aging, and the Arkansas Rehabilitation

Association Conference, At least one international meeting, the Self-Help for Hard-of-Hearing

International Conference, will be the target of training activities for ARTAP personnel during the

implementation phase of the project.


In order to facilitate maximum information dissemination relating to assistive technology and

technology-related services ARTAP will investigate and use distance teaching approaches (e.g.,

conference calls, teleconferences, and instructional video tapes) in order to reach statewide audiences.

These instructional techniques have proven to be highly effective and cost efficient. ARTAP staff will

identify distance instruction resources that exist throughout the state, such as public television stations

and universities, and then develop cooperative agreements to co-sponsor the instructional programs.

Objective 5.3: To evahr.te the ARTAP training system.

The evaluation of the ARTAP training process will include systematically collecting descrip-

tive information on each training activity. This information will include: the topic of the training; the

format of e training (e.g., demonstration, lecture, workshop); a list of the presenters; the location of the

training; the number and characteristics of the attendees; the costs of the training program; the resources

and equipment used; and the cooperative arrangements that facilitated the training. Comparison of this

information to established training plans and priorities will enable decisions to be reached concerning

the accomplishments of training goals.

Outcome measurements will consist of satisfaction questionnaires completed by the partici-

pants and the survey of current training needs regarding technology and services. Analysis of the

satisfaction questionnaires and comparison of the results to established training priorities will

enable the Training Coordinator to determine the success of the training activity and the progress toward

achieving the activity's stated goal. The analysis of this information will also enable the Training

Coordinator to determine the effectiveness of various training formats ( e.g., comparison of the effec-

tiveness of lecture presentations to video taped programs).

During the third year of this project consumer and professional technology needs surveys

will be conducted. These surveys will be similar to the surveys conducted during the Spring of 1989 (see

the Needs Assessment section for details of these surveys). Comparisons of the results of these surveys

will enable the ARTAP staff to determine the overall impact of the training activities to the identified

needs. In addition, cooperative agreements for the collection and sharing of information will be

established with other agencies and groups, such as the Division of Rehabilitation Services and the

Arkansas. Technology Access 53

Special Education Resource Center, so that questions concerning technology training needs will be

included in their needs assessment activities. Information regarGing the effectiveness of the training

activities and unmet training needs will be provided to the TIS, to the ARTAP Advisory Committee, and

to the Division of Rehabilitation Services.

Goal 6: To develop a statewide system for equipment exchange of used assistive devices.

Frequently, a particular piece of technology is required only for a short period of time to enable

the person to gain maximum benefits from the technology. For example, children "outgrow" assistive

devices due to increases in size and increases in abilities. At other times, more advanced technology is

purchased as it becomes needed by the consumer. In both instances, the consumer is presented with the

situation of having "used technology" on hand for which there is no practical application. Generally,

there is no way for the persons having such used technologies to recoup any of their investments in the

technology via sale or trade-in strategiesoptions which most people have with regard to other types

of tangible goods in our society.

In Arkansas, there are no systematic procedures for the distribution of used assistive technolo-

gies available to consumers. This is an area of important need in this state in order to expand therange

of technology-related services available to citizens having disabilities.

Objective 6.1: To create a registry of equipment statewide and regionally.

Inherent in the creation of a statewide and regional system for equipment exchange of used

devices, is the development of a registry of such available devices on a state and regional level.

Information dissemination is a critical component in this process. Ongoing activities relating to

implementation of ARTAP will incorporate strategies designed to elicit consumer response to requests

for participation in the development of the registry system. The marketing plan used to impact on the

public awareness will, of necessity, address the issue of how to best acquire information from consumers

as well as how to optimally insure their participation in the system on both the state and regional levels.

Policies for the registry will be designed by ARTAP personnel with the input of the ARTAP Advisory


Council, which has a majority consumer constituency. These policies will be shared with all consumers

who make contact with the ARTAP system, including requests for services made through the TIS, the

TACs, and through the regional technology specialists. The information regarding used assistive devices

will be stored in the TIS database to be accessible to all persons in the state having the capability of

accessing the system. Efforts will be made to publish print and audio materials relating to the availability

of used assistive devices around the state and to disseminate these materials on a regional and state level

to potential consumers of such used devices. The information base will be continually updated on a

regular basis via the design of a "self-clearing" database. Links to existing equipment registries, such

as that at Children's Medical Services, will be developed in year 1 and 2 of the grant.

As with other aspects of ARTAP implementation, the process of developing the statewide

system for exchange of used assistive technology will proceed centrally to peripherally. First, the TIS

will be developed and become the primary source of information regarding the availability of used

technology for consumers. Second, the TACs, once developed, will assume responsibility for the

acquisition of information as well as dissemination of information in tandem with the TIS. Third, the

regional technology specialists will be given information regarding used assistive technology in their

regions, and be trained to secure this information themselves on a regional basis, sharing information

with the TIS as it is acquired.

Objective 4.2: To evaluate the Equipment Exchange Program.

Since each consumer will be surveyed within 2 months of his/her receipt of services, as well

as annually with regard to level of satisfaction with services received, both a qualitative and quantitative

index of satisfaction with this component of the system will be acquired. Examination of the number

of requests for services made of the TIS, the TACs, and the regional technology specialists will also

provide evaluative information. Though all requests for services will not pertain to the Equipment

Exchange Program, many such requests will and, as such, will be used to examine the utility and

efficiency of the system. Another dimension of evaluation will be the examination of the actual number

of items in the system. Similarly, given the fact that consumers will be contacted within 2 weeks of their

entry into the system to ascertain the status of their requests for services, examination of the number of


matches made between needs and services tendered will be enabled. Finally, telephone contacts made

by TIS personnel with consumers who have entered the system in need of selling, trading, or acquiring

used assistive technology will function to determine levels of satisfaction with the Equipment Exchange

Program.

Goal 7: To improve interagency cooperation in the development of consumer responsive policies

and procedures regarding technology services.

Interagency cooperation in the provision of technology funding and services has been

consistently noted to be a crucial factor in any technology service system (Developmental Disabilities

Program, 1986; Governor's Task Force on Technology and Disabilities, 1987; Mendelsohn, 1989;

Office of Technology Assessment, 1982; Technology Access for Arkansans, 1989). Fragmentation in

the provision of technology services typically results in the inefficient usage of existing financial

resources in the service delivery system.

In Arkansas, professionals have rated the identification and coordination of of policies,

resources, and services to be the third highest priority for a technology service system. Professionals

have rated the provision and payment for technology and services to be of almost equal importance. A

Consumer Advisory Committee designated to establish priorities for the proposed state technology plan

identified interagency cooperation in providing funding to purchase services and technologyas being the

fifth highest priority.

The value of interagency cooperation for technology access is demonstrated by the relationship

between the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department and Project TAARK. These two groups

worked together on a comprehensive technology needs assessment in March-May of 1989. Since AHTD

was involved in its own 5-year planning activities, it was decided that resources could be shared in a joint

survey effort to provide information necessary for both groups. As a result of this initial collaborative

relationship, AHTD became involved in the preparation and support of this grant application. Continued

involvement with AHTD is anticipated as ARTAP personnel explore possibilities for enhancement of

the transportation system for persons with disabilities in the state.


persons in the regions.

Support to each regional technology team will be provided through the TIS and TAC personnel

as appropriate. Semi-monthly telephone contacts will be made to the coordinator of each regional team

to determine needs, share information, and other interactions as appropriate. Each coordinator will

compile monthly reports relating to the types of activities in which his/her team has participated during

that period of reporting. Monthly t inents will be made contingent upon the submission of the reports

indicating an active involvement of team members in improving technology access and services to

persons with disabilities.

Since each team of regional technology specialists has responsibility almost exclusively to

their respective service region, training provided to consumers and professionals in their regions and

other types of assistance regarding technology service provision will be a principle activity for the team

members. Each member will accept requests for services from persons in his/her region and facilitate

the provision of that service to the greatest extent possible. The regional technology specialists will be

encouraged to develop local support networks involving consumers, parents, professionals, and the

business community. The tasks of the support networks will be to identify and develop solutions to

technology access barriers in their communities. The regional technology specialists will use existing

resources in the community to the maximum extent possible as well as drawing on the combined

resources of the TIS and TACs in the provision of training to persons in their regions.

Objective 8.3: To evaluate the network of regional technology specialists.

As with other aspects of ARTAP project evaluation, multiple techniques will be used to

determine the effectiveness of the Regional Technology Specialists Program. The number of referrals

made by the specialists in each region will be examined to ascertain implementation impact on each

region of the state. Comparisons of the number of referrals contrasted with the population base of each

region will provide performance measures necessary for decision-making by ARTAP personnel.

Inquiries made to the TACs across the state will also provide information relating to the impact of the

regional technology specialists on their respective regions. Evaluation of the monthly reports will also

provide information concerning the number and range of activities involving the technology specialists.


ARTAP personnel will periodically contact the TACs and ask specific questions regarding their

perceptions of the roles played by the technology specialists. The technology specialists themselves will

be surveyed periodically, either by telephone or through direct contact by ARTAP personnel, and

questioned about their effectiveness and satisfaction in their role.s. Since longevity in a particular

position is often an index of satisfaction with a work role, documentation will be maintained of each

technology specialist's length of affiliation with the ARTAP program.

The number of training activities conducted by the regional technology specialists in their

respective regions will also be used to evaluate this component of ARTAP implementation. Records of

attendees present at these training activities will be forwarded to the CIS for summary and evaluation.

Surveys of service agencies and groups in each region will be made by ARTAP staffon a periodic basis

to ascertain the level of involvement of the regional technology specialists with such agencies and

groups, and to determine the perceptions of these service providers towards the technology specialists

and their effectiveness in the region. Finally, examination of the number of complaints filed with the TIS,

TACs, or other service agencies will provide information necessary for evaluation.


Networking has been shown to be a highly efficient and important means of disseminating

information. Excellent examples of such systems are reflected in the Parent to Parent program

coordinated by the Association for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas and the Parents of Augmentative

Communication Talkers in Georgia ( Lennon & Harnden, 1989) . Through these systems, parents of

persons who have handicapping conditions are enabled to contact other parents who have problems

similar to those experienced by the parents entering the network. The contacts allow those who have

already experienced and overcome obstacles relating to service provision to share their experiences and

information with others. This facilitates the development of advocacy skills, information dissemination,

and needed support for famine aid consumers.

Given the effectiveness of such networks of resource persons, a network of users of technology

across the state will be developed during the implementation of the ARTAP system. This system, User-


to-User, will place parents, consumers, and families in touch with other individuals who have used

specific types of technology. Such a referral and support system will provide a tremendous service to

potential users of technology who too often purchase technology that is inappropriate for their needs.

Objective 9.1: To identify individuals to participate in a User-to-User network on a state and

regional basis.

Participants in the User -to -User network will be identified employing a variety of previously

effective approaches. The marketing campaign developed by the marketing specialist will initially

facilitate interest in the network based on awareness activities conducted statewide. This will include

publication of information in state newsletters, presentations at meetings and conferences, in-service

presentations, public service announcements, teleconference presentations, videotape presentations

disseminated statewide, and other medium for the transfer of information. Information disseminated

through the TIS to each of the TACs will result in nominations of persons deemed to be appropriate for

participation being made from each of these sites. Letters and brochures explaining the program and

requesting nominations for participants will also be sent to professionals and organizations working with

persons who have disabilities. In addition vendors of technology devices will be asked to contact

customers to invite them to participate in the network. Identification of the initial pool of participants

will be concluded by September, 1990.

Every person who is identified will receive a packet of materials explaining the program and

their duties and a release form which must be signed before they can be entered into the network. A

registry of all participants in the User-to-User network wi' I be developed employing a computer database

housed at the TIS. All nominations and self-referrals will be stored in this database and updated regularly

as new nominations and referrals are made to the system. This activity will be completed by October,

1990.

Objective 9.2: To disseminate information relating to the User-to-Usernetwork to the

TACs, and Regional Technology Specialists.

Once an initial pool of participants in a User-to-User network has been identified and is placed


on the TIS computer database, all TACs will be contacted by ARTAP personnel and given a listing of

the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of those involved in the network. The timeline for

thecompletion of this activity is November, 1990. Information pertaining to participants in the User-To-

User Network will be provided to each team coordinator during their training by TIS personnel by

January, 1991. As new participants are identified by the TIS, this information will be forwarded to the

coordinators in order that they might, in turn, disseminate this information to their respective team

members.

Objective 9.3: To evaluate the User-to-User network.

Several techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of the User-to-User network will be

employed. Examining the number of nominations of persons to participate in the network will yield

information regarding the effectiveness of the marketing of the program. Comparisons made by region

will reflect the level of activity of technology specialists in their respective regions. The number and

characteristics of the persons who participate in the User-to-User training sessions will be recorded and

analyzed to identify service patterns and gaps. Persons who participate in the training programs will be

asked to evaluate the quality and relevance of the training they received. Semi-annually, participants in

the network will also be asked to evaluate the quality of the network. The characteristics of the persons

who use the system for a source of information or support will be analyzed to identify patterns and service

gaps. The number of matches of requests for information to available user "experts" will serve as a

valuable technique for evaluating the effectiveness of the system. In addition, satisfaction and

recommendation questionnaires, similar to the ones used to evaluate the information system (see Goal

2), will be sent to all persons who access the User-to-User network.

Evaluation Plan

The kinds of information that will be collected and analyzed for evaluating achievement of each

goal is described in this section. Persons with disabilities, their families and representatives will

Arkansas Technology Access 64participate fully in the evaluation process to help ensure that a consumer-responsive statewide

technology access system is created in Arkansas. They will serve both as providers of information when

accessing ARTAP services and as evaluators of the evaluation information hrough staff positions, and

through membership on the Advisory Committee and TAARK study groups. Whenever appropriate, a

multiple measure evaluation approach will be used to evaluate processes and outcomes of ARTAP

(Irwin, Crowell, & Bellamy, 1979). This involves simultaneously using several procedures tomeasure

program processes and outcomes. The advantages of this strategy over a single measure approach to

evaluation include: a) the possibility of error is reduced when the same outcome is documented by

different measurement instruments that are susceptible to different error influences (Johnson & Bolstad,

1973); b) the need to assess a variety of outcomes in relation to multiple program objectives: and c) that

multiple assessment can provide information to a variety of potential users of the evaluation data who

have differing needs ( e.g., consumers, administrators, and legislators). In gene al, descriptive statistical

techniques will be used to analyze and to report the evaluation findings. Components of the evaluation

system were also presented in the Plan of Activities section.

In order to ensure that the evaluation of ARTAP is conducted using the most appropriate

techniques and in a timely manner, technical assistance will be provided to ARTAP by staff from the

Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center and the University of Arkansas - University

Affiliated Program for Developmental Disabilities. The Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training

Center is part of the nationwide network of Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers. The Arkansas

Center focuses on problems and technical assistance in the area of rehabilitation assessment with

emphasis in vocational rehabilitation and independent living. The University of Arkansas - University

Affiliated Program for Developmental Disabilities is part of the national network of UAPs that are

funded by the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities. Technical assistance, interdiscipli-

nary training, and participation in state-of-the-an practices involving persons with disabilities are some

of the mandated tasks for the UAP. Personnel from both of these programs will assist ARTAP staff in

developing an effective evaluation system, assist in developing data collection and analysis protocols,

and assist in implementing the evaluation plans. In addition, ARTAP staff will seek the assistance of

and participate fully in the evaluations organized through the national technology technical assistance

program funded under P.L. 100-407.

63


Within the Division of Rehabilitation Services there is also an internal grant monitoring

process which is an inherent pai t of any grant secured for the provision of services. This process will

also be used to monitor and evaluate the implementation of ARTAP. The TAARK project study groups

described previously in this proposal will be continued throughout the implementation phase of the grant.

These st Ay groups will submit reports periodically to the AR'TAP Advisory Council for consideration

and .eview, focusing on consumer issues, funding mechanisms, activities of national models for

technology service delivery, personnel issues, information dissemination and public awareness, and

legislation and administrative policies. Such reports will serve to provide supplementary monitoring and

evaluation information to the Deputy Director, ARTAP Project Director, and the ARTAP Advisory

Council.

In an effort to maximize the input of consumers of technology, the ARTAP Advisory Council

members will make informal contacts with consumers of technology throughout the state. These

contacts will be initiated by consumers. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of ARTAP

Advisory Council members will be provided as public information through newsletters, surveys, and

other mechanisms, so that consumers can make direct contact with the board members . In addition,

public forums provided at meetings of the Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Coalition for

the Handicapped, Association for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas (ARC), Division of Rehabilitation

Services, and the State Technology Conference will serve as important vehicles for consumer input.

The following are descriptions of the evaluation procedures that are planned for each of

ARTAP's nine goals. Due to the interrelationships among goals many of the same data collection and

evaluation strategies are shared among the different goals.

Goal 1: To develop an ongoing, consumer-driven planning and evaluation system.

One of the principle means of evaluating the implementation efforts of ARTAP will be through

the use of evaluation forms provided to each consumer accessing the system at the various Technology

Access Centers (TACs). Each consumer who is provided with a service from these centers will be

encouraged to evaluate their satisfaction with the TAC and with the overall system. The completed

evaluation forms will be mailed directly to the Technology Information System (TIS) for data entry and


action (in the event of dissatisfaction). Random telephone interviews with consumers of technology and

technology-related services provided by the system will also be attained periodically to evaluate the

effectiveness of the ARTAP system. These contacts will be made by personnel of the TIS, with the

information being stored for retrieval and dissemination to the Advisory Committee, to the TACs, and

to other groups as requested.

During the third year of the grant, statewide consumer and professional surveys will be

prepared, disseminated, and analyzed. These surveys will be designed in such a way as to enable

comparison with the results of the TAARK (1989) surveys (see the Needs Assessment section for further

information about the TAARK technology needs surveys). The survey instruments will be designed by

a team of consumers and professionals. Particular concern will be placed on items concerning

technology awareness and accessibility.

An important evaluation technique will involve examining the implementation of solutions to

the identified barriers. This examination will result in an index or solution/barrier ratio (SBR). A high

ratio indicates a high rate of success in solving technology accessibility problems in Arkansas.

A final means of evaluation of ARTAP implementation efforts will focus on periodic

examinations of past statistical data relating to ABLEDATA usage and other information contacts

contrasted with current contacts made by consumers and professionals around the state. For the past four

years, the Division of Rehabilitation Services has been maintaining a record of requests from consumers

and professionals regarding assistive devices for persons with disabilities. The number of contacts to

ARTAP will be immediately available from computer storage at the various TACs and the TIS, providing

quantitative measures of the impact of ARTAP activities on the attitudes and opinions of Arkansans.

Goal 2: To develop a coordinated technology information/service system.

One evaluation technique involves gathering satisfaction and grievance information and

anaylzing it for patterns which highlight both strengths and weaknesses of the system. Each person

accessing the TIS will be contacted via a telephone call by the TIS staff within 2 weeks of their entry into

the system to determine whether needed services were obtained and to ascertain the recipient's level of

satisfaction with services received. These contacts would be followed up within 2 months by a mail-


out questionnaire sent to the service recipient from the TIS. Also, service recipients will be made aware

of grievance processes on their initial entry into the system. Since the Division of Rehabilitation Services

has been designated as the lead agency for the administration of ARTAP, grievance processes would

be accessed through the Division of Rehabilitation Services internal procedures for lodging complaints.

An alternative form of grievance procedure which will be examined and potentially developed ,-.;11 be

through the existing Consumer Protection Division housed within the Office of the Arkansas Attom,:y

General. Persons who have used the information system will also be asked to provide demographic

information, information concerning their needs, and how they learned of the TIS services.

Since needs assesssments are an ongoing activity demonstrated by many public and private

agencies/groups, T1S personnel will insure that many of these annual needs assessments, e.g., Division

of Rehabilitation Services, Governor's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Division of Aging

and Adult Services, etc., x 11 contain questions having bearing on the TIS. At the beginning of the third

year of the ARTAP impl mentation phase, a comprehensive needs assessment will be conducted

involving all persons who have accessed the TIS system, as well as consumers and professionals who

are members of a variety of organizations that would provide mailing lists of their membership rosters.

A critical facet of this comprehensive needs assessment would be levels of satisfaction with the TIS

system.

One important consumer-based evaluation strategy involves analyzing the TIS services using

the Information Accessibility Guidelines. These Guidelines were developed by a subcommittee of the

Consumer Committee that established the priorities for ARTAP. The Guidelines are intended to

sensitize ARTAP staff to accessibilty barriers and to ensure that technology related information and

services will be accessible to all persons with disabilities. The responsibility of ARTAP is to match

information dissemination and access modes to the needs of individuals with disabilities. Information

mList be available in tactile, auditory, and visual formats, and the reading and complexity level of the

materials must be adapted to meet individuals. This evaluation will be conducted by a consumer

subcommittee of the Advisory Committee.

Other forms of evaluation of the TIS would include (1) progress reports submitted from the

TAARK study groups which act in an advisory capacity to the ARTAP Advisory Council; (2) input from


the federal technical assistance program; (3) quarterly reports from the TACs ; (4) informal contacts

made by consumers with the ARTAP Advisory Council; (5) examination of the number of access

contacts made with databases available in the TIS by persons across the state; and (6) anecdotal records

maintained by the various regional technology specialists across the state that would be submitted on a

regular basis to the CIS.

Goal 3: To facilitate the development and expansion of Technology Access Centers across the

state.

Quantitative evaluation techniques will include each TAC recording and analyzing the follow-

ing information: the number and types of inquiries for technology information they received; the number

and purposes of evaluations and assessments that they provided; the numbers of persons who participated

in on-site and off-site equipment demonstrations; the number of presentations and other training

activities in which TAC staff participated; the number of persons who participated in the TAC's training

activities; the number and types of items the TAC added to the TIS database; the numbers and types of

publications and other informational materials produced and disseminated by the TAC; and the

participation of TAC staff in marketing activities. In addition to recording the number of individuals

served by the TACs, information concerning the characteristics of the "clients", including age, type of

disabilities, address, technology needs, and how they learned about the TAC's services. Semi-annual

summary and analysis of this information will provid,, an accurate picture of each TAC's activities. This

analysis will also delineate the characteristics of the TAC's customers and the effectiveness of various

marketing strategies.

Qualitative evaluation will consist of asking persons who have received services from the TAC

to indicate their satisfaction with the services, criticism of the services, and recommendations for

improvements. Each person who accesses the TAC services will receive a questionnaire. Service

recipients will be informed of the ARTAP's grievance processes. Semi-annual summary and analysis

of these instruments and complaints will provide information concerning the quality of the TAC's

services. This information will be provided to the TIS, to the ARTAP Advisory Committee, and to the

Division of Rehabilitation Services.


Goal 4: To establish a marketing and public awareness campaign to promote the benefits and use

of technology for persons with disabiliti,,s.

Evaluation of the ARTAP marketing and public awareness campaign will involve recording

and analyzing a w' le variety of events including: the number of times such Public Service Announce-

ment is aired; the number of times that articles appear in press, as well as the types of publications in

which they appear; the number of "ad slicks" that are reproduced in written publications; the number

of brochures distributed to the general public, professional audiences, consumers, and other groups; the

number of news/talk shows on which information relating to technology and its uses; the number of

presentations relating to technology usage with persons with disabilities made at conferences and

conventions; and, the number of presentations made via the consumer/professional speakers' bureau. A

statewide "clipping service" will be designed to locate and excerpt such articles for storage in the TIS.

Pre- and posttests will be used in with presentations to determine the level of expanded awareness

created. A final component of the evaluation process will be the number of persons who access the TIS

and TACs who respond to a question regarding the source of their knowledge of ARTAP and correspond-

ingly voice their awareness of ARTAP as a result of some particular component of the campaign, e.g.,

a television PSA or brochure.

Goal 5: To develop coordinated training activities for persons with disabilities, their families, pro

fessionals, employers and the general public concerning technology-related services.

The evaluation of the ARTAP training system will include systematically collecting descrip-

tive information on each training activity. This information will include: the topic of the training; the

format of the training (e.g., demonstration, lecture, workshop); a lisi of the presenters; the location of the

training; the number and characteristics of the attendees; the costs of the training program; the resources

and equipment used; and the cooperative arrangements that facilitated the training. Comparison of this

information to established training plans and priorities will enable decisions to be reached concerning

the accomplishments of training goals.

Outcome measurements will consist of satisfaction questionnaires completed by the partici-


pants and the survey of current training needs regarding technology and services. Analysis of the

satisfaction questionnaires and comparison of the results to established training priorities will enable the

Training Coordinator to determine the success of the training activity and the progress toward achieving

the activity's stated goal. The analysis of this information will also enable the Training Coordinator to

determine the effectiveness of various training formats ( e.g., comparison of the effectiveness of lecture

presentations to video taped programs).

During the third year of this project, consumer and professional technology needs surveys

will be conducted. These surveys will be similar to the surveys conducted during the Spring of 1989 (see

the Needs Assessment section for details of these surveys). Comparisons of the results of these surveys

will enable the ARTAP staff to determine the overall impact of the training activities to the identified

needs. In addition, cooperative agreements for the collection and sharing of information will be

established with other agencies and groups, such as the Division of Rehabilitation Services and the

Special Education Resource Center, so that questions concerning technology training needs will be

included in their needs assessment activities. Information regarding the effectiveness of the training

activities and unmet training needs will be provided to the TIS, to the ARTAP Advisory Committee, and

to the Division of Rehabilitation Services.

Goal 6: To develop a statewide system for equipment exchange of used devices.

Since each consumer will be surveyed within 2 months of his/her receipt of services, as well

as annually with regard to level of satisfaction with services received, both a qualitative and quantitative

index of satisfaction with this component of the system will be acquired. Examination of the number

of requests for .ervices made of the TIS, the TACs, and the regional technology specialists will also

provide evaluative information. Though all requests for services will not pertain to the Equipment

Exchange Program, many such requests will and, as such. be used to examine the utility and efficiency

of the system. Another dimension of evaluation will be the examination of the actual number of items

in the system. Similarly, given the fact that consumers will be contacted within 2 weeks of theirentry

into the system to ascertain the status of their requests for services, examination of the number of matches

made between needs and services rendered will be enabled. Finally, telephone contacts made by TIS

6!)


personnel with consumers who have entered the system in need of selling, trading, or acquiring used

assistive technology will function to determine levels of satisfaction with the Equipment Exchange

Program.

Goal 7: To improve interagency cooperation in the development of consumer responsive policies

and procedures regarding technology services.

Evaluation will concentrate on three different levels of activities relating to ARTAP

involvement in facilitating changes in the policies involving technology access. An examination of the

number of pre-grant cooperative agreements versus post-grant agreements will be initiated, providing

an index of change within the system. Also, during the process of providing training to policy makers

regarding technology access issues, documentation of whether training occurred and the satisfaction

with that training will be collected and analyzed. Finally, a comparison will be made between the policy

barriers that are identified and the success of the solutions to those barriers.

Goal 8: To establish a network of community-based technology specialists responsive to persons

with disabilities and their families.

The number of referrals made by the specialists in each region will be examined to ascertain

implementation impact on each region of the state. Comparisons of the number of referrals contrasted

with the population base of each region will provide performance measures necessary for decision-

making by ARTAP personnel. Inquiries made to the TACs across the state will also provide information

relating to the impact of the regional technology specialists on their respective regions. Evaluation of

the monthly reports will also provide information concerning the number and range of activities

involving the technology specialists. ARTAP personnel will periodically contact the TACs and ask

specific questions retarding their perceptions of the roles played by the technology specialists. The

technology specialists themselves will be surveyed periodically, either by telephone or through direct

contact by ARTAP personnel, and questioned about their effectiveness and satisfaction in their roles.

Since longevity in a particular position is often an index of satisfaction with a work role, documentation

will be maintained of each technology specialist's length of affiliation with the ARTAP program.

The number of training activities conducted by the regional technology specialists in their


respective regions will also be used to evaluate this component of ARTAP implementation. Records of

attendees present at these training activities will be forwarded to the CIS for summary and evaluation.

Surveys of service agencies and groups in each region will be made by ARTAP staff on a periodic basis

to ascertain the level of involvement of the regional technology specialists with such agencies and

groups, and to determine the perceptions of these service providers towards the technology specialists

and their effectiveness in the region. Finally, examination of the number of complaints filed with the TIS,

TACs, or other service agencies will provide information necessary for evaluation.


Several techniques for evaluating the effectiveness of the User-to-User network will be

employed. Examining the number of nominations of persons to participate in the network will yield

information regarding the effectiveness of the marketing of the program. Comparisons made by region

will reflect the level of activity of technology specialists in their respective regions. The number and

characteristics of the persons who participate in the User-to-User training sessions will be recorded and

analyzed to identify service patterns and gaps. Persons who participate in the training programs will be

asked to evaluate the quality and relevance of the training they received. Semi-annually, participants in

the network will also be asked to evaluate the quality of the network. The characteristics of the persons

who use the system for a source of information or support will be analyzed to identify patterns and service

gaps. The number of matches of requests for information to available user "experts" will serve as a

valuable technique for evaluating the effectiveness of the system. In addition, satisfaction and

recommendation questionnaires, similar to the ones used to evaluate the information system (see Goal

2), will be sent to all persons who access the User-to-User network.


Management Plan

The management plan for insuring implementation of the various tasks described in the

ARTAP proposal are delineated in this section. The management plan consists of five components: (1)

Staff Resources; (2) Fiscal and Accounting System; (3) Internal Management Plan; (4) Activity

Timeline; and (5) Description of Resource Allocation.

Staff Resources

The Division of Rehabilitation Services has an adequate number of personnel to support the

ARTAP application. The Assistant Deputy Director of this agency has indicated that 38 staff members

are available within the Central Office to act in a support capacity to the program. Additionally, the

agency has indicated that the services of the Arkansas Research and Training Center at the University

of Arkansas-Fayetteville will be employed in the areas of training and evaluation as well as to monitor

the implementation of ARTAP activities.

An organizational chart reflecting the ARTAP framework is depicted in Figure 4 on page 30.

Job descriptions for key program personnel have been developed. Specific responsibilities for program

activities are listed in the Activity Timeline below,

Fiscal and Accounting System

The Assistant Deputy Director for the Division of Rehabilitation Services is licensed as a

certified public accountant. This person will assume responsibility for overseeing the fiscal compor :nt

of the grant. The Internal Review and Audit Section of the Division of Rehabilitation Services will

additionally hold responsibility for monitoring the fiscal resources of the program.

It should be noted that the state operates the Accounting Federal Grants Management System

(AFGM) which facilitates tracking of Division of Rehabilitation Services expenditures in accordance

with stipulated funding regulations. This system consists of two basic processes. The first process

involves the accomplishment of the State's accounting functions, while the second process entails the


accomplishment of tracking and reporting functions specified in the federal grant's application. These

two processes are integr,ted whenever required, i.e., a voucher issuance function is recorded simulta-

neously to both the accounting and federal grants processes of AFGM. Those functions that are the result

of a single transaction being recorded result in the simultaneous recording of both accounting and federal

grants procedures.

The Division of Rehabilitation Services manages federal funds in excess of $13,000,000 each

year and has established appropriate accountin g and auditing procedures to meet OMB Circular A-102

requirements.

Internal Management Plan

To facilitate internal management of ARTAP, a performance evaluation system will be used.

This type of system has been designed to insure effective program monitoring. The performance

evaluation system will include a procedure for identifying problems in scheduling and costs, and a system

for reallocation of resources as necessary. To insure that tasks are completed on time, schedules of

weekly activities will be given to each ARTAP staff. Individual progress will be reported by each

program worker to the Program Director on a bi-weekly basis. The Program Director will initiate these

contacts by telephone calls or personal communication every second Friday during the ARTAP

implementation phase. Program staff will be encouraged to identify problem areas at these times.

Undoubtedly one of the most likely problems is that activities will not be completed in the scheduled time

frame. The Program Director will monitor actual time spent on each taskon a bi-weekly basis, comparing

the predicted time allotment to the actual time being expended. This procedure will allow the Program

Director time for redirecting ARTAP staff to meet important deadlines. In addition, the Program

Director will use a microcomputer planning software package, called MacProject II (CLARIS, 1988),

to plan, track, and allocate resources for the specified activities.

Monthly staff meetings will be held as a means of ensuring that the entire group has input to

the program as it whole. These meetings will last one to two hours in length. Participants will be asked

to indicate agenda items one week prior to the meeting. The ARTAP Administrative Assistant will be

responsible for recording meeting minutes. These meetings will also serve as a means of recognizing

73


excellence and of informing ARTAP workers about the current status of the various tasks.

Activity Timeline

A display of the scope and sequence of the major ARTAP tasks is reflected in the Activity

Timeline presented below. The major tasks, personnel involved in the tasks, and proposed starting and

completion dates are also indicated in this figure. This timeline will remind program workers of job

responsibilities and time commitments.


ARKANSAS TECHNOLOGY ACCESSPROGRAM ACTIVITY TIMELINE

Activity Personnel StartingDates

EndingDates

GOAL i....

Objective 1.1Establish Advisory Council Division of Rehabilitation Services, Deputy 10/1/89 10/15/89

Director (DRS/DD)Objective 1.2

Identify Barriers and Solutions AR.TAP Advisory Council, TAARK Study 10/1/89 OngoingGrcups

Objective 1.3Evaluate implementation of Plan DRS/DD, ARTAP Advisory Council,

Program Director10/1/89 9/30/90

GOAL 2

Objective 2.1Conduct RFP Process DIIS/DD, ARTAP Advisoiy Council 10/1/89 10/15/89

Hire TIS Personnel DRS/DD 10/1/89 11/15/89DirectorInfomiation Specialists & Secretary DRS/DD, Program Director, Host 11/15/89 2/15/89

Orilanization Executive Director

Marketing Specialist DRS/DD 1/1/90 1/30/90

Training of TIS Personnel DRS/DD, Program Director, Public & 2/15/90 8/1/90Private Agencies/Organizations

Objective 2.2Dissemination of TIS to Technology Program Director, Information Specialists 7/1/90 9/1/90Access Centers.

Develop Training Notebook for Regional Marketing SpeciaEst, Information Specialist 6/1/91 7/15/91Technology Specialists (Coordinator of Regional Technology

Specialists)

Disseminate Training Notebook to Information Specialist. (Coordinator of 7/15/91 9/15/91: Regional Technology Specialists Regional Technology Specialists)

Evaluate TIS Program Director 7/1/90 Ongoing

JOINIVAYEIUMEIHI.WWWAIMPMSWAt


Activity Personnel tartiigDates

ndingDates

MINIMIlliiiiIMMIIMOIA

Objective 3.1Develop & Publish RFPs, for DHS/DRS 10/1/89 10/15/89Technology Access Centers

10/15/89 1/1/90Review Submitted Proposals ARTAP Advisory Council

1/1/90 1/1/90Announce Awards DRS/DD

Develop and Implement TACs Host Organization Executive Director 1/1/90 3/15/90

Objoaive 3.2Provir'..: Educational Resources to Liformation Specialists, ASERC Personnel 1/1/90 OngoingExisting Systems Serving theEducational Community

Objective 3.3Provide Reources to Vocational CenterDeveloped Through DHS/DRS

Program Director, Information Specialists,DRS/DD

1/1/90 Ongoing

Objective 3.4Evaluate TACs Program Director, Host Organization 1/1/90 Ongoing

Executive DirectorsGOAL 4

Objective 4.1Hire Marketing Specialist DRS/DD 10/1/89 2/15/90

Development of Plan Marketing Specialist, Marketing Firm,Community Organizations, ARTAP

2/15/90 4/11/90

Advisory Council

Develop Marketing Materials Marketing Specialist 2/15/90 Ongoing

Review of Marketing Materials ARTAP Advisory Council, Consumer 7/15/90 8/1/90Groups

Objective 4.2Implement Marketing Plan Program Director, Marketing Specialist,

Information Specialists8/1/90 Ongoing

Production c :' Materials Marketing Specialist 2/15/90 Ongoing

Dissemination of Materials Marketing Specialist 3/1/90 Ongoing


Activity ersonnel tartrngDates

EndingDates

I bjective 4.3Evaluate Effectiveness of MarketingCampaign

DHS/DD, Program Director 9/31/90 Ongoing

GOAL 5

Objective 5.1Identify Training Needs andMechanisms

Program Director, TAARK Study Grows,Information Specialist TAC Host

2/15/90 4/1/90

Organization Executive Directors, RegionalTechnology Specialists

Objective 5.2Conduct Training Activities Program Director, Information Specialist,

TAC Host Organization Designated4/1/90 Ongoing

Personnel, Public & Private Agencies,Regional Technology Spxialists

Objective 5.3Coordinate Training Activities Program Director, Information Specialist,

TAC Host Organization Designated4/1/90 Ongoing

Personnel, Public & Private Agencies,Regional Technology Specialist

Objective 5.4Develop and Implement System of Program Director, Information Specialist 2/15/90 OngoingTraining

Objective 5.5Evaluate Training Program Program Director, Information Specialist 2/15/90 Ongoing

GOAL 6

Objective 6.1Create Statewide Registry of Equipment ARTAP Advisory Council, Marketing 2/15/90 Ongoing

Specialist, Information SpecialistObjective 6.2

Evaluate Equipment Exchange Program Program Director, TAC Host Organization 2/15/90 OngoingExecutive Directors, Regional Technology

GOAL 7 Specialists

Objective 7.1Establish Interagency Council Governor, DRS/DD, Program Director 6/15/90 8/15/90

Objective 7.2Evaluate Effectiveness of Interagency ARTAP Advisory Council, Program 8/15/90 OngoingActivities Director

--.........

;


ActiVity ersonnel tartingDates

ndingDates...

L. AL 8

Objective 8.1Develop Regional Technology Teams Marketing Specialist 10/1/90 6/91

Provide Training and TechnicalAssistance to Regions

Program Director, Information Specialist,TAC Host Organization Personnel

1/91 3/91

Evaluate Network of Regional Program Director, Information Specialist 10/1/90 OngoingTechnology Specialists

GOAL 9

Objective 9.1.Identify Participants to Participate in a Marketing Specialist, TAC Host 2/15/90 10/90User-to-User Network Organization Personnel

Disseminate Information Relating to Information Specialists, Marketing 5/1/90 < OngoingUser-to-User to TACs and Regional SpecialistTechnology Specialists

i1-!;valuate User-to-User Network Program Director, Information Specialist,

Regional Technology Specialists5/1/90 Ongoing


Inclusion of Individuals W ith Disabilities andTheir Families or Representatives

This application describes substantive roles for individuals with disabilities and their families or

representatives in:

(i) The development of the application, including the assessment of needs;

(ii) The establishment of goals and objectives for the program;

(iii) The planning and implementation of the functions and activities to be carried out under the

program; and

(iv) The evaluations o' activities under the grant and the assessment of the progress that the State

has made toward the accomplishment of the progfam's goals and objectives;

Involvement in the Development of the ARTAP Plan

The inclusion of ndividuals with disabilities and their families or representatives in the develop-

ment of the ARTAP plan and in the assessment of needs is one of the driving elements in the application

development process in Arkansas. In response to consumer input, the first item listed in the Division of

Rehabilitation Services' mission statement for ARTAP is "ensuring active, timely, and meaningful

participation by individuals with disabilities and their families or represer.`.z.+17es, and other appropriate

individuals with respect to performing functions and carrying activities under the grant."

The entire focus of the grant and application process was an ARTA? consumer-driven planning

process. Though the initial Technology Steering Committee of the ARTAP was composed of

representatives of 6 organizations, it should be noted that at all meetings of the Coordinated Planning

Committee, subsequent to the organizational meeting on January 4, 1989, an average of 38% of the

participants were persons with disabilities or parents of persons with disabilities. One of the original

organizations, however, was the Association for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas, an orgaiztion which

represents thousands of persons with disabilities and their families. Also one of the iginal agency


representatives is a parent of a child with disabilities. Since only 3 of the 15 participants in the first

meeting were individuals with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities or their representatives,

the participants were requested to nominate at least 2 individuals with disabilities or parents to serve on

the committee. At the next meeting, 10 (46%) of the 22 participants were individuals with disabilities,

parents of children with disabilities, or their representatives. By May of 1989, the Coordinated Planning

Committee had grown to a constituency of 45 persons representing persons with disabilities, their

families, and 25 different organizations. This statistic supports the strong commitment in the planning

process to facilitate maximum participation by persons with disabilities and their families in the design

of a comprehensive technology state plan. The purpose of the Coordinated Planning Committee was

to develop a state plan for a consumer-responsive statewide system of technology-related assistance, and

to develop an application for P.L. 100-407.

Consumer Needs Survey

Consumer participation in the needs assessment ranged from input into the development of

assessment methodologies and survey instruments to the provision of information through formal and

informal means. A Consumer Needs Study Group was organized to draft documents designed to assess

the technology-related needs of persons with disabilities, as well as to identify needs for trainingamong

professionals involved in service provision to persons with disabilities. Consumer input was solicited

from across the state via the mechanism of a Consumer Survey designed to assess needs of users, or

potential users of assistive device technology. The format for the survey included multiple choice

questions on specific technology-relevant issues, and open-ended items allowing consumers to express

their unique needs and to offer suggestions for those involved in the state planning process. These

suggestions were compiled for the review of those establishing priorities for the state plan as well as those

designing methodologies for the implementation of those priorities.

The outreach efforts of the Consumer Needs Study Group was substantial. Each participating

agency and group was requested to provide a mailing list of persons with disabilities. This request

resulted in approximately 12,00() mailing labels being submitted for use in the consumer survey which

accessed a range of consumers including persons with mental retardation, hearing impairments, and


multihandicaps. Groups which participated by providilig mailing lists included: Advocacy Services;

Arkansas Association for the Hearing Impaired; Coalition for the Handicapped; Mainstream Living,

which is a Title VII Independent Living Center; Arkansas Easter Seal Society; Central Arkansas Area

Agency on Aging; Department of Human Services; Division of Developmental Disabilities Services; Di-

vision of Rehabilitation Services; and the Division of Services for the Blind. The first four organizations

listed are consumer-based.

In order to address the elderly population of the state, Arkansas Aging, a periodical of the Division

of Aging and Adult Services and the Arkansas Association of Area Agencies on Aging, was contacted

and consent was obtained to reproduce the Consumer Survey instrument in its newspaper. This

publication has a circulation of approximately 35,000 within the State of Arkansas. Consent was also

obtained to reproduce: the Consumer Survey in the monthly newsletter disseminated by the Association

for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas which has a circulation of approximately 4,000. These three sources

resulted in the potential to reach approximately 51,000 Arkansans. The Consumer Needs Survey had

a return rate of 18%.

Establishment of the Goals and Objectives for the Program by Consumer Advisory Committee

The purpose of the Coordinated Planning Committee was to develop a state plan for a consumer-

responsive statewide system of technology-related assistance, and to develop an application for P.L. 100-

407. During the meeting, six study groups were organized to facilitate the acquisition of information

relevant to goals. These study groups included Consumer Needs, Information Dissemination and Public

Awareness, Legislation and Administrative Policies, National Service Delivery Models, Personnel

Issues, and Funding Issues, and were chaired by the representatives of the six organizations constituting

Project TAARK. Persons with disabilities, their family members and their representatives participated

in each of the Study Groups based on their individual interests. Each of these Study Groups met

independently from January until March to collect information relevant to the issue area targeted by the

study group, identify buriers to technology access in Arkansas, and to develop solutions to the barriers.

In May, the Coordinated Planning Committee established a Consumer Advisory Committee com-

posed of individuals with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities. These members were


selected from the Coordinated Planning Committee to establish priorities for the Arkansas grant

application for Pl. 100-407. The resulting Consumer Advisory Committee reflected a constituency of

persons representing a variety of interest groups: a chairperson with a visual impairment who also diercts

a Title VII Part B independent living center; a parent of a child with cerebral palsy who is on the

Governor's Committee for Employment of the Handicapped; a parent of a multihandicapped child who

is also the Chair of the Governor's Deaf/Blind Task Force: a person with learning disabilities who also

serves on the National Learning Disabilities Advisory Board; a person with blindness employed as an

executive with AT&T who is on a 2-year loan to the President's Committee for Employment for the

Handicapped and serves on the Governor's Committee for Employment of the Handicapped; and an

elderly person representing the aging population as a member of the Governor's Advisory Council on

Aging. Initial data analyses of the surveys were shared with the committee to assist it in its efforts to

establish priorities.

The Consumer Advisory Committee met on numerous occasions in an effort to both prioritize

technology goals for the proposed grant application, as well as to offer recommendations pertaining to

methodologies for attaining those goals. The recommendations of this committee were presented to the

Coordinated Planning Committee at its meeting on May 24, and they prepared written recommendations.

Subsequent meetings focused on methodological decision-making processes to deal with the priorities

estab. Med by the Consumer Advisory Committee. A representative of the Consumer Advisory

Committee was present at meetings of the Technology Steering Committee held on June 8 and June 14

to insure that the integrity of its priorities and recommendations was maintained in the development of

state plan methodologies.

Efforts to Ensure Consumer Participation

Throughout the TAARK planning activities, the involvement of individuals with disabilities, their

families or representatives, and persons from the private sector has been actively encouraged and

facilitated. Inherent in the initial TAA.RK grain award was a budgetary allotment for stipends to support

the involvement of individuals with disabilities and their families at all planning meetings. A second

strategy involved encouraging a number of very skilled persons with disabilities to participate in the


planning activities, as illustrated by the membership of the Consumer Advisory Committee. These

persons quickly assumed leadership roles and were able to guide the planning process, as well as serving

as outstanding role models.

Consumer Involvement in ARTAP Implementation and Evaluation

The involvement of persons with disabilities, their families and representatives is a strong

component of the evaluation activities of the program's goals and objectives. A Consumer Advisory

Committee was designated to establish priorities for a comprehensive technology plan in Arkansas. This

group has recommended that the organization of an on-going consumer review panel was the second

greatest priority for the conceptualized state plan. The plan calls for the Deputy Director of the Division

of Rehabilitation Services to be directly responsible for appointing an Arkansas Technology Access

Program (ARTAP) Advisory Council. This council will consist of 15 individuals of which 9 (60%) will

be persons with disabilities and parents or representatives of groups of persons with diszbilities. An

attempt will be made during the appointment pi, ocess to select a group of persons who will, to the greatest

extent possible, represent the various groups of persons with disabilities across the state. This reflects

recommendations made by the Consumer Advisory Committee and TAARK (1989).

The specific responsibilities of the Advisory Committee will include advising the Division of

Rehabilitation Services Deputy Director, making recommendations regarding overall project develop-

ment, reviewing the Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for specific technology services as delineated in

Goals 2 and 3, and gathering.and reviewing evaluation data and reports. An organizational chart of the

ARTAP framework is illustrated in Figure 3 on page 24.

Persons involved with the Technology Access for Arkansans (TAARK) project study groups

described previously in this proposal will continue to be involved throughout the implementation of the

grant. These study groups are composed of a variety of consumers, parents, professionals, etc. The study

groups will submit reports periodically to the ARTAP Advisory Council on an on-going basis for

consideration and review, focusing on consumer issues, funding mechanisms, activities of national

models for technology service delivery, personnel issues, information dissemination and public

awareness, and legislation and administrative policies. Such reports will serve io provide supplementary


monitoring and evaluation information to the Deputy Director, ARTAP Program Director, and the

ARTAP Advisory Council. Additionally, the ARTAP Advisory Council members will make informal

contacts with consumers of technology throughout the state. These contacts will be initiated by

consumers. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of ARTAP Advisory Council members will

be provided as public information through newsletters, surveys, and other mechanisms, such that direct

contact can be made with these board members by consumers.

Consumer involvement in the evaluation and assessment process will also be insured through a

variety of public and private organizations who host public forums annually such that input may be

gained from consumers and families regarding the quality of technology services provided in the state,

These open forums are included in the meetings of such diverse groups as the Governor's Developmental

Disabilities Planning Council, the Coalition for the Handicapped, the Division of Rehabilitation

Services, and the Association for Retarded Citizens/Arkansas. Additionally, a statewide Annual

Technology Conference will be held in conjunction with ARTAP implementation processes, providing

a primary mechanism for consumers and professionals alike to identify barriers toward attainment of

ARTAP goals as well as to generate solutions to such barriers. Reports of identified barriers will also

be submitted to the TAARK on-going Study Groups for evaluation and problem-solving.

Another means of evaluating implementation efforts of ARTAP will be through the use of

evaluation forms provided to each consumer accessing the system at the various Technology Access

Centers (TACs). Each consumer who is provided with a service from these centers will be encouraged

to evaluate their satisfaction with both that TAC, but also with the overall system.

During the third year of the grant, comprehensive statewide consumer and professional surveys

will be prepared, disseminated, and analyzed to determine the impact of the ARTAP project. The survey

instruments will be designed by a team of consumers and professionals. These surveys will include all

persons who have accessed the TIS and TACs as well as persons who are members of various

professional and consumer organizations that are identifiable via available mailing lists acquired by TIS

personnel.

Also, service recipients would be made aware of ARTAP grievance processes on their initial entry

into the system. Since needs assessments are an ongoing activity demonstrated by many public and


private agencies/groups, TIS personnel will insure that many of these annual needs assessments, e.g.,

Division of Rehabilitation Services, Governor's Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Division

of Aging and Adult Services, etc., will contain questions having bearing on the TIS. At the beginning

of the third year of the ARTAP implementation phase, a comprehensive needs assessment will be

conducted utilizing all persons who have accessed the ARTAP program, as well as consumers and

professionals who are members of a variety of organizations that would provide mailing lists of their

membership rosters. A critical facet of this comprehensive needs assessment would be levels of

satisfaction with the ARTAP system.

Marketing Activities

Marketing materials and related information will be provided to the TIS, to the ARTAP Advisory

Committee, and to the Division of Rehabilitation Services. Consumer and advocacy groups will be

provided the opportunity to review the marketing materials and strategies that are developed.

8b


CoordinatiotA

In addition to the full participation of consumers in the ARTAP planning process, it vas

recognized that a wide range of agencies and organizations must work cooperatively in order for ARTAP

to succeed. This recognition is reflected in the cooperative planning that began with the development

of Project TAARK in 1988. TAARK represents the cooperative effort by 6 agencies and organizations

to develop solutions to the technology access barriers facing Arkansans with disabilities. A description

of the TAARK goals and structure is provided on pages 3 and 4 of the application narrative.

One of the first activities of TAARK was to develop a committee representing the majority of

agencies and organizations involved in providing assistive device services and technology in Arkansas.

This committee, called the Coordinated Planning Committee, consists of 48 persons. Thirty-three of the

participants represented 25 public and private agenc es involved in providing assistive devices and

technology services to Arkansans of all ages with disabilities. Nineteen (40%) of the participants were

persons with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, or their representatives. Twelve (25%) of

the participants were representatives of private non-profit organizations. Three (6%) individuals

represented private businesses, such as assistive device vendors. Fourteen (29%) of the participants were

employees of 12 state agencies. A few of the participants are counted twice in these figures, e.g., 4 state

agency employees were also persons with disabilities or parents of children with disabilities.

A description of the Coordinated Planning Committee's efforts in developing the ARTAP plan

is presented in pages 3-9 of the application and the process is illustrated in Figure 1 (page 4). Following

a series of training sessions, the Consumer Committee, a subcommittee of the Coordinated Planning

Committee identified the goals and objectives for ARTAP.

As described in Goal 1 (pp.23-28) and illustrated in Figure 3, the study groups that were

developed from the Coordinated Planning Committee will continue to have an active role in planning

and evaluating the success of programs that are designed to improve ter.' nology access for Arkansans

86


with disabilities. These study groups will work directly with the ARTA P Advisory Council. In addition,

although at least 60% of the ARTAP Advisory Council will consist of individuals with disabilities,

parents of children with disabilities or their representatives, agencies and organizations will be well

represented in the constituency of the remaining 40% of the Council. The ARTAP Advisory Council

will have a direct role in the comprehensive evaluation of ARTAP to ensure the development of a truly

consumer-responsive statewide system for technology access (see the Evaluation Plan pp 63-72, for a

detailed description of these activities).

Goal 7 (pp. 56-59) describes the ARTAP plan for developing an Interagency Council made up

of policy-making staff from all state agencies involved in technology access forpersons with disabilities.

The importance of this activity is reflected in the Governor of Arkansas' commitment to establish this

interagency group and to charge them with the task of identifying and developing solutions to barriers

caused by st4Le regulations and procedures. The Interagency Council will have direct communication

links to the ARTAP Advisory Council. In order to facilitate the activities of this group one of the TIS

information specialists will be assigned to serve as the staff person for the Council.

It is expected that the Interagency Council will establish interagency agreements that will result

in the substantial improvement of technology access for Arkansans with disabilities. Some efforts have

already begun in this regard. For example, recent discussions between the deputy directors of the various

divisions of the Arkansas Department of Human Services and the Department of Education have resulted

in commitments to provide staff and other resources in the next biennium budgets to continue ARTAP.

As reflected in the description of personnel for the TIS (see Goal 2 pp31-34) and in the ARTAP budget,

the Division of Rehabilitation Services has already made this commitment by providing four key staff

positions and related in kind support to ARTAP.

Plans For Continuation of ARTAP

As reflected in its name, the Arkansas Technology Access Program is designed to be an ongoing

program to improve technology access, not a limited duration project. A variety of mechanisms have

been built into ARTAP in order to achieve this goal. These include: the development of long-term

cooperative relationshii between and among consumers and professionals; the establishment of


commitments to support the program from state level policy makers; the use and expansion of existing

resources whenever possible instead of creating expensive new "brick and mortar" projects; the

development of effective yet low cost monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; the implementation of

extensive training programs for consumers and professionals that emphasize the role of advocacy in

technology access; the implementation of a statewide public awareness campaign; the development of

local rather than centralized networks of technology specialists throughout the state; the creation of low

cost mechanisms for obtaining needed devices, such as the Equipment Exchange Program; and, the

development of proven low cost technology support systems for persons with disabilities and their

families. In addition, ARTAP's Technology Information System is designed to serve as the model for

a comprehensive human services information and referral system in Arkansas. Such a system has

received support from the Arkansas Legislature and has been discussed by many groups over the past

five years. ARTAP will be the first implementation of such a system in Arkansas.

The success of the ARTAP process reflects very strong commitments by consumers and

professionals in Arkansas to break down the barriers to technology access, and to enhance the lives and

opportunities of persons of all ages with disabilities through the appropriate use of technology. Funding

is sought under P.L. 100-407 to help facilitate these efforts. The processes used to develop these

cooperative relationships in Arkansas and the ARTAP activities can help to serve as models for other

states working on technology access problems.

Arkansas Technology Access 9G

References

Arkansas Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (1984). AARTC report on the incidence of

disabilities in Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR: author.

Arkansas Department of Education (1986). An early childhood profile: Needs assessment /resource

survey report. Little Rock, AR: Author.

Agosta, J. M., Ashbaugh, J. W., Langer, M., Moore, K., Bradley, V. J., Mu lkern, V., Nurczynski, P.

(1988). An examination of the impact of adopting the federal definition of developmental

disabilities in Arkansas.. Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute.

Braddock, D., Hemp, R., & Fugiura, G. (1988). Public expenditures for mental retardation and de

velopmental disabilities in the United States: State profiles, 2nd ed. Public Policy

Monograph Series, 29.

Demographic Research, Center for Information Services (1986). Provisional projections of the

population of the State of Arkansas, by county, 1980.2000. Demographic Bulletin No.2.

Department of Education (1989). State grants program for technology-related assistance for individuals

with disabilities, Federal Register, 34 CFR, 345.

Developmental Disabilities Program (19"4 Governor's report on technology. for people with dis

abilities. Abilities and technology. St. Paul, MN: author.

Developmental Disabilities Program (1984), Improving the quality of life for people with disabilities..

Potential uses of technology. Policy Analysis Series Paper No. 22. St. Paul, MN: author.

Division of. Demographic Research (1988). Arkansas' projected age structure by color and sex:

1980-2(XX). Demographic Bulletin, June (4), 1-17.

Education Service Cooperative Act of 1985 [Acts of Arkansas 1985, No. 349, S 1; A.S.A. 1947,

S80-489],

Enders, A. (1989, March). Information issues and options. Paper presented to the National

Workshop on Implementing Technology Utilization, Washington, D.C.

b;)


Galvin, D. E. (1989, March). Implementing technology utilization. Paper presented to the National

Workshop on Implementing Technology Utilization, Washington, D.C.

Governor's Task Force on Technology and Disabilities (1987). A final report of the task force on

technology and disabilities. Albany: State of New York.

Hughes, D., Johnson, K., Rosenbaum, S., Simons, J., Butler, E. (1987). The health of America's

children: Maternal and child health datebook. Washington, D.C.: Children's Defense

Fund Issue Team on Technology for People with Disabilities (1986). Governor's report on

technology for people with disabilities. Abilities and technology. St. Paul, MN: Developmetal

Disabilities Program, Minnesota State Planning Agency.

Irvin, L.K., Crowell, F. A,, & Bellamy, G.T. (1979). Multiple assessment evaluation of programs for

severely retarded adults, Mental Retardation, 17, 189-196.

Janicki, M. P., Knox, L. A., & Jacobson, J. W. (1985). Planning for an older developmentally dis

abled population. In M. P. Janicki & H. M. Wisnieski (Eds.), Aging and developmental dis

abilities. Baltimore: Brookes.

Johnson, S. & Bolstad, 0. (1973). Methodological issues in naturalistic observation: Somme roblems and

solutions for field research. In L. Hamerlynk, L. Handy, & E. Mash (Eds.), Behavior cahange:

Methodology, concepts and practice. Champaign: Research Press.

LaPlante, M. (1988). Data on disability from the National Health Interview Survey, 1983 -1985. An

Info Use report. Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation

Research.

LeBlanc, M. (1989, March). Professional training in the provision of assistive technology: Issues and

options. Paper presented to the National Workshop on Implementing Technology Utilization,

Washington, D.C.

Lennon, A. & Hamden, P. (1989) Assistive Technology: Creating a parent network. In the Proceedings

of the RESNA Twelfth Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.: RESNA Press.

Mendelsohn, S. (1989, March). Payment issues and options in the utilization of assistive technology.

Paper presented to the Natiultal Workshop on Implementing Technology Utilization,

Washington, D.C.

9u


Office of Technology Assessment (1982). Technology and handicapped people. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

Shafer, D. (1985). Using multiple databases in rehabilitation operations. In Smith, C. (Ed.),

Technology for disabled persons conference papers. Discovery '84 (pp. 208-213)

Menomonie, WI: Stout Vocational Rehabilitation Institute.

State Department of Education (1988). December 1 Child Count Report and Annual Data Report.

Little Rock: author.

Technology Access for Arkansans (1989). Proceedings from the DeGray Lodge Retreat, March 22-

23 , 1989. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas at Little Rock.

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1980). General social and economic characteristics. Arkansas.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Wilkerson, D. L. (1989, March). Elements of program evaluation for assistive technology programs.

Paper presented to the National Workshop on Implementing Technology Utilization,

Washington D.C.

Woolcock, W. W., & Smith, L. (1985). Telephone survey of work activities and adult developmental

centers in Arkansas. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arkansas at Little Rock,

Little Rock.

Vanbiervliet, A., & Parette, Jr., H. P. (1989). Technology access for Arkansans: A unique collaborative

state planning activity. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Documents

originating it OERI position or policy Think Peoplefiles.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED316985.pdfProgram (ARTAP) was conceptualized by. a committee of 48 persons. representing persons with